Finally, in EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., 46 F.4th 587 (7th Cir. 2022), the EEOCfiled an action on behalf of charging party Paul Reina, a cart attendant, alleging that thedefendant failed to provide him with a reasonable accommodation of a full-time jobcoach in violation of the ADA. A jury found that the defendant violated the ADA, andawarded Reina $200,000 in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitivedamages. The district court, however, declined to issue an injunction against thedefendant. The defendant appealed, seeking judgment as a matter of law or,alternatively, a new trial. The EEOC cross-appealed seeking remand to the district courtfor further proceedings on the injunction. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the jury verdictand the district court’s ruling declining to issue an injunction. Reina was a deaf, legallyblind employee who communicated through sign language and hand gestures. During16 years at Wal-Mart, Reina had three job coaches. After a new manager was hired in2015, the manager asserted that the job coaches were performing 90% to 95% ofReina's job, suspended Reina’s employment, and required him to fill out a newapplication to be a cart attendant. The EEOC thereafter filed suit alleging that thedefendant violated the ADA by denying Reina’s job coach accommodation. Followingthe jury verdict, the defendant argued that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of lawbecause the jury should not have concluded that Reina could perform the essentialfunctions of the cart attendant position. Id. at 656. The Seventh Circuit found that thejury was properly instructed to decide the essential functions of a cart attendant andwhether Reina was capable of doing those essential functions. Further, the SeventhCircuit determined that the jury properly concluded that Reina was able to perform theessential functions of retrieving traditional carts and the essential customer servicefunctions of his job. In addition, the EEOC sought an injunction that would require thedefendant to not discriminate against disabled employees as required by the ADA; toengage in the interactive process; to consider the use of a job coach or aide as areasonable accommodation where it does not impose an undue hardship on thedefendant; to adopt a checklist for all employees involved in the reasonableaccommodation determination process; and to give all its employees involved in thereasonable accommodation process two hours of live training on the ADA. Id. at 661.The EEOC contended that the district court committed legal error by focusing onwhether the defendant had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination. TheSeventh Circuit opined that the district court gave sufficient reasoning that no evidencesuggested that the defendant’s proven illegal conduct might be resumed that wouldjustify the far-reaching injunction that the EEOC sought. Accordingly, the SeventhCircuit affirmed the jury verdict and the district court’s ruling that denied the EEOC’srequest for an injunction.E.EEOC Cases Over Pay DiscriminationThe EEOC brings numerous pay discrimination lawsuits in light of its SEP, and 2022was no exception.25© Duane Morris LLP 2023The EEOC Litigation Review – 2023
It seems that your browser's pop-up blocker has prevented us from opening a new window/tab. Please click the button below to open the link manually.