DBTAC: Southeast ADA Center

2nd Circuit Affirms Award Against Wal-Mart in Disability Bias Case

July 8, 2008

An employer has a duty to reasonably accommodate an employee's disability where the disability is obvious even though the employee did not request an accommodation, a federal appeals panel has ruled.

Staking out an exception to the general rule that the requirement to accommodate is normally triggered by a disabled employee's request, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said an employer must take action "if the employer knew or reasonably should have known that the employee was disabled."

The circuit made the ruling in upholding a $900,000 award for compensatory and punitive damages, plus $644,000 in attorney fees, to Patrick S. Brady on his Americans with Disabilities Act claim against Wal-Mart for the actions of its employees at a store in Centereach, Long Island, New York.

Judges Amalya Kearse, Guido Calbresi and Robert Katzmann decided the appeal in Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 06-5486-cv. Calabresi wrote for the panel.

Brady, who suffers from cerebral palsy, alleged that Wal-Mart personnel asked him prohibited questions before hiring him, and later discriminated against him and created a hostile work environment.

Among his charges were that the store transferred him from the pharmacy to a position that required him to collect shopping carts. Brady's family and a treating psychiatrist testified that the conditions of his employment caused him severe emotional distress and one time spurred a total breakdown that sent him to the emergency room.

Brady signed a job description certifying that he had "the ability to perform the essential functions" of the position either "with or without reasonable accommodation."

But he later testified that, soon after he began working, his supervisor, Yem Hung Chin, told him to "speed it up," and appeared dissatisfied with him. Chin testified she was "completely alarmed at the time" and thought Brady's performance was "absolutely awful."

Brady was ultimately assigned to the parking lot to collect garbage and shopping carts. When his father went to the store to complain, a manager arranged for his transfer to the food department to stock shelves but on a schedule that conflicted with his community college schedule. Discouraged, Brady quit.

A jury award of $2.5 million was reduced by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein to $600,000 and a punitive damages award of $5 million was reduced to the statutory cap of $300,000.

On the appeal, Wal-Mart contended that the short duration of Brady's transfer to the parking lot meant he had not suffered an adverse employment action. The circuit disagreed, in part because Brady was not transferred back to the pharmacy.

Full article: 2nd Circuit Affirms Award Against Wal-Mart in Disability Bias Case at http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202422819418.

Top of Page