09-12-2024
Marlo Spaeth, an individual with Down syndrome, worked as a Wal-Mart sales associate for fifteen years. Routine is especially important for individuals with Down syndrome because it is very difficult for them to process change. Spaeth worked from 12:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. four days a week. Spaeth's schedule accommodated her bus schedule (because she could not drive) and inability to stand longer than four hours. When assigning Spaeth a new task, managers had to instruct her multiple times with a fair amount of patience. Wal-Mart supervisors gave Spaeth positive evaluations throughout her employment.
In 2014, Wal-Mart instituted a policy requiring specific work shifts based on customer traffic patterns and issued a directive against individual schedule changes. Spaeth received a new shift of 1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. She had difficulty with the change and often left early or failed to show up. Wal-Mart spoke to Spaeth about her attendance issues and began disciplinary actions. Spaeth asked to return to her old schedule, stating she worried about missing the bus and not eating dinner on time. Store managers said they did not understand Spaeth’s schedule requests as requests for accommodation. Wal-Mart fired Spaeth for attendance issues.
The EEOC sued Wal-Mart for disability discrimination. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the EEOC, finding that Wal-Mart knew Spaeth needed an accommodation, could have accommodated her, and failed to provide that accommodation and fired her in violation of the ADA. Wal-Mart appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to show Wal-Mart knew Spaeth's challenges with the new schedule were related to her Down syndrome. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Wal-Mart's appeal. Wal-Mart did not dispute being aware of Spaeth's Down syndrome. They knew she had difficulty coping with changes to her routine from experience when they added job responsibilities. Lastly, when Wal-Mart modified her schedule, they saw her "immediate and obvious difficulties." She had no issues with attendance prior to the change. Plus, Spaeth’s guardian expressly notified Wal-Mart after Spaeth’s termination that she needed accommodation. Wal-Mart had a duty to engage in an interactive process.