Compliance

Court Says Injured Wal-Mart Worker Can Pursue Retaliation Claim

By Staff Report

Jul. 11, 2011

A woman can proceed with a lawsuit alleging that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and retaliated against her for demanding her workers’ compensation rights, a federal appeals court has ruled in a split decision.


The July 6 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Heidi M. Cox vs. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. overturned a district court ruling that had granted Wal-Mart summary judgment in the case involving the Oregon employee who was injured in a fall.


After the fall, Cox returned to work in May 2007 and Wal-Mart afforded her several accommodations, court records state. But she alleges that Wal-Mart disciplined and fired her after she invoked her rights under Oregon’s workers’ compensation law.


In granting summary judgment to the retailer, the district court found that Cox was not a “qualified individual” under the ADA and that Wal-Mart had met its burden of engaging in an interactive process of accommodation.


But in the 2-1 appeals court ruling, the majority disagreed on both matters. Among other issues, the majority found that a reasonable jury could conclude that Wal-Mart did not engage in the interactive accommodation process in good faith when it rejected her request for a deadline extension to return paperwork regarding her leave.


The panel also ruled that Cox provided evidence that when she invoked her rights under Oregon’s workers’ compensation law, Wal-Mart unjustifiably disciplined her three times—despite Wal-Mart finding her performance acceptable and making accommodations before she invoked her right.


Therefore, a reasonable jury could infer her termination was linked to invoking her workers’ compensation rights, the majority ruled in remanding the case to the lower court.


In his partial dissent, 2nd Circuit Justice Ronald Gould said that by showing only that she was disciplined and terminated “after she asked about workers’ compensation,” Cox did not raise a “genuine issue of fact about a casual link between her invocation of the system and her termination.” 


Filed by Roberto Ceniceros of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.


 


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

What’s New at Workforce.com?

blog workforce

Come see what we’re building in the world of predictive employee scheduling, superior labor insights and next-gen employee apps. We’re on a mission to automate workforce management for hourly employees and bring productivity, optimization and engagement to the frontline.

Book a call
See the software

Related Articles

workforce blog

Compliance

Minimum Wage by State in 2023 – All You Need to Know

Summary Twenty-three states and D.C. raised their minimum wage rates in 2023, effective January 1.  Thr...

federal law, minimum wage, pay rates, state law, wage law compliance

workforce blog

Compliance

Exempt vs. non-exempt employees: knowing the difference

Summary Employees are exempt from FLSA requirements when they meet specific exemption criteria based on...

Department of Labor, exempt employees, Misclassification, non-exempt employees

workforce blog

Compliance

California fast food workers bill: why it’s more than meets the eye and how to prepare

Summary: California signs bill establishing a “fast food council” that has the power to raise the indus...