The jury ruled that the dismissed Walmart employee with Down syndrome should receive $125 million.

The jury ruled that the dismissed Walmart employee with Down syndrome should receive $125 million.

An eight-person jury ruled that Walmart violated the Americans with Disabilities Act after firing a sales representative with Down syndrome due to changes in her work schedule.

According to the New York Times, after a four-day trial, a jury in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin found that the company did not take into account Marlo Shpet’s disability when she asked to change her schedule.

Shpet, who worked at Walmart for 16 years and received positive feedback from her managers, saw that her working hours were changed in November 2014. According to the woman’s lawyers, she demanded to return the previous schedule, since the changes created significant difficulties for her.

She was later fired from the store in 2015 due to absenteeism.

According to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which represented Shpet in this case, the jury also concluded that she had asked for re-employment, but Walmart rejected the request «because of her disability or because of the need to adapt to her disability.»

The jury awarded Shpet $125 million in penalties and $150 thousand in compensation.

«The verdict in this case is a strong signal to employers that disability discrimination is unacceptable in the workplace in our country,» said EEOC Chair Charlotte Burrows.

In a statement, Randy Hargrove, a Walmart spokesman, said that the amount of compensation will be reduced to $300 thousand: «the maximum amount allowed by federal law for compensation and punitive damages.»

«We do not tolerate discrimination of any kind, and we regularly employ thousands of employees every year. We often adjust employee work schedules to meet the expectations of our customers, and although Ms. Speth’s schedule was adjusted, it remained within the time she specified, » Hargrove said.

«We are attentive to this situation and believe that we could have solved the problem with Ms. Shpet, but the EEOC’s demands were unfounded.»

Source