Walmart agreed to pay $60,000 and provide other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concerning Walmart's Farmingdale, New York, supercenter.

The EEOC alleged that Walmart withdrew disability-related accommodations that had enabled an employee with hearing, speech, and cognitive impairments to perform her job as a customer availability process associate since 2017, during which time she had received positive performance reviews.

In January 2020, new managers at the store allegedly discontinued the accommodations that assisted the employee with understanding her daily assignments. This led to a conflict about her tasks and her subsequent termination for "insubordination".

The EEOC asserted this conduct violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires reasonable accommodation of employees' disabilities absent undue hardship and prohibits retaliating against an employee because of a disability or accommodation.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York after conciliation efforts did not resolve the matter, and it concluded with a consent decree signed on December 17, 2025.

Under the decree, Walmart will provide training to managers and human resources personnel on the ADA and reasonable accommodations, submit compliance reports to the EEOC, and post a workplace notice informing employees about the settlement and their rights regarding discrimination.

Source: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/walmart-pay-60000-eeoc-disability-discrimination-lawsuit

Commentary

In the above matter, the employer granted an accommodation and then later rescinded the accommodation even though it appeared to be working.

Granting a reasonable accommodation and then withdrawing it later can create risk for employers. Once an employee has performed successfully with an accommodation, the employer has effectively acknowledged that the employee is qualified and that the accommodation is workable, which makes any later removal look like discrimination unless the organization can clearly show a new undue hardship, a fundamental change in the job, or a decline in the employee's performance.

When a new supervisor or manager arrives and "resets" their personal expectations by revoking an existing accommodation, the abrupt change can support claims that the decision was based on bias against those with disabilities rather than based on a business need, especially if the next step is discipline or termination tied to performance problems the accommodation had previously resolved.

Loss prevention requires treating accommodations as ongoing obligations managed through the interactive process, not one-time favors that can be withdrawn at will. If circumstances change, the employer's first step should be to re-engage with the employee, document the reasons for any proposed change, and explore alternatives that maintain access to work rather than closing it off. Unilateral removal, vague references to "new policies," or changes driven solely by a new manager's preferences increase the likelihood of EEOC charges, litigation costs, and reputational damage, particularly where the accommodation has been in place for years without issue.

Additional Source: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-reasonable-accommodation-and-undue-hardship-under-ada