Walmart Succeeds in Ex-Employee’s Disability Suit Dismissal

Walmart Inc. won’t have to face discrimination and retaliation charges from a former employee because those allegations weren’t presented first to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Walmart’s assertion that three of the worker’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be dismissed succeeds because she “failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to those claims,” said Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins with the US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama on Friday.

Paris Chestnut claims her supervisor discriminated against her because she is Black and disabled soon after she started working at the Walmart “Supercenter” store in Mobile, Ala., in 2022.

Chestnut says she doesn’t have a gallbladder, an Americans with Disabilities Act-recognized medical issue that affects her digestion and requires her to make “frequent visits to the restroom.”

Chestnut alleged that she faced disparate treatment that included cutting her hours, following her to the bathroom “to ensure that she was actually going to the bathroom,” giving her “mean looks,” and ultimately, her termination in October of 2023. Chestnut said she was fired for chewing gum, which is against company policy but was necessary because her medication made her mouth dry.

“Chestnut’s complaint does not allege or otherwise show that the alleged discriminatory act of termination was made a part of any administrative filing with the EEOC,” Bivins wrote. “As the Eleventh Circuit has recognized, termination is a discrete act of discrimination that must be presented to the EEOC before it may serve as the basis for an independent judicial discrimination claim.”

At the same time, Chestnut had “ample opportunity” to amend her EEOC charge or file a new charge relating to her October 2023 termination, given that her EEOC claim remained pending for approximately eight months after her termination, and Chestnut didn’t file suit in this Court until Sept. 1, 2024, Bivins wrote. “However, Chestnut chose not to amend or file a new EEOC charge based on her termination,” she wrote.

Because Chestnut didn’t amend or file a separate EEOC charge that brought a termination claim within 180 days of the end of her employment, her Title VII and ADA retaliation claims in counts five and nine are barred “to the extent those claims are based on her post-charge termination,” Bivins wrote.

Barrett & Farahany represents Chestnut. Harbuck Keith Hunt & Palmer LLC represents Walmart.

The case is Chestnut v. Walmart Inc., 2024 BL 393536, S.D. Ala., No. 1:24-cv-00317, opinion 11/1/24