Is It a Reasonable Accommodation for an Employee to Use a Store’s Electric Cart While on Duty?

Having litigated disability cases in the workplace for more than two decades, our employment disability discrimination lawyers in Citrus County, Florida, know that employers sometimes refuse to allow employees with disabilities to utilize the most basic and readily available accommodations that would allow them to perform their jobs. Instead, some employers would prefer to place an employee on indefinite unpaid leave rather than provide a commonsense accommodation provided to other employees. As the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently pointed out, such a failure to accommodate is a flagrant violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a clear example of unlawful disability discrimination. Learn more below about the $70,000 penalty levied against a Walmart store in Greenville, South Carolina, and contact our experienced Ocala employment lawyers if you’ve been the victim of disability discrimination at your workplace in central Florida.

Walmart Unlawfully Canceled Employee’s Ability to Use the Store’s Electric Cart for Mobility

The case of EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP (Case No. 1:22-cv-02596-JFA-TER) began when a worker at a Greenville, South Carolina, Walmart, Luis Quiñones, was told he could no longer use the store’s electronic carts to get around while on duty. Quiñones, who has a prosthetic leg, was initially allowed to use the store’s carts in the performance of his duties as a reasonable accommodation of his disability, as required by the ADA. After about seven months, however, the worker was told the carts were for customers only and that he could no longer use them, although other employees with temporary injuries were allowed to use the store’s carts.

Rather than offer some alternative form of accommodation that would enable Quiñones to perform, the store instead placed him on unpaid leave for an indefinite period. At this point, the EEOC stepped in and attempted to resolve the matter in a pre-litigation settlement through the agency’s alternative dispute resolution process, known as conciliation. Failing that, the government filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Aiken Division.

Walmart Agrees to Monetary Penalty, Injunction

To settle the charges against it, Walmart agreed to pay Quiñones $70,000 in monetary damages and offer him a job at one of its stores in South Carolina. Walmart will also remain under EEOC supervision for the duration of a two-year consent decree which issues the following injunctions against the retail chain:

• The company may not fail to provide reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities related to walking and standing at the affected store;

• The store may not eliminate existing reasonable accommodations for such individuals without first identifying an alternative that would allow them to continue working (with limited exceptions);

• The retail giant must conduct annual training for salaried employees at Store #0514 in Aiken;

• Walmart must post an employee notice at the Aiken location;

• The chain must submit periodic reports to the EEOC demonstrating its compliance with the above requirements.

Marion County Disability Discrimination Lawyers

This case stands for the proposition that revoking a reasonable accommodation without providing an alternative is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and should send a strong signal to employers everywhere of their duties under the ADA. Based in Ocala, Florida, and representing workers throughout Florida, our Marion County employment discrimination lawyers have been litigating disability discrimination cases in Florida for over twenty years. If you have been the victim of discrimination at work based on actual or perceived disability or other protected characteristics, or if you have questions about your rights as the victim of employment discrimination, please contact our office for a free consultation. Our employee rights law firm takes disability discrimination cases on a contingency fee basis. This means that there are no attorney’s fees incurred unless there is a recovery and our attorney’s fees come solely from the monetary award that you recover.