EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.
46 F.4th 587
7th Cir.2022Background
- Walmart’s 2014 Temporary Alternate Duty (TAD) Policy provided full‑pay light duty to employees injured on the job at Distribution Center #6025 but excluded pregnant employees and those injured off the job.
- Walmart explained TAD as a workers’ compensation–aligned program to retain injured workers, reduce hiring costs, and limit legal/exposure and indemnity payments under Wisconsin law.
- The EEOC sued under Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act on behalf of a class of pregnant workers, alleging Walmart’s categorical exclusion of pregnant workers from TAD was sex/pregnancy discrimination.
- Individual claimant testimony (e.g., Lein, Welch) described denied accommodation requests, unpaid leave, health risks, and job loss attributable to the exclusion.
- The case proceeded through contentious discovery; the district court dismissed two claimants as a discovery sanction, denied some EEOC discovery requests, granted summary judgment to Walmart, and the EEOC appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walmart’s exclusion of pregnant employees from TAD violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (disparate‑treatment under Young) | EEOC: denying light duty to pregnant women while accommodating on‑the‑job injured workers is intentional pregnancy discrimination | Walmart: TAD is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory workers’‑compensation‑driven policy tied to state law, cost and legal exposure reasons | Affirmed for Walmart — Walmart carried step‑two justification; EEOC failed step‑three to show a significant burden or comparable nonpregnant comparators that would create an inference of intentional discrimination |
| Whether dismissal of two claimants as a discovery sanction was proper | EEOC: sanction was draconian, violations inadvertent, no prejudice | Walmart: EEOC repeatedly missed court‑ordered deadlines and controlled claimant records, prejudicing discovery | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; warnings and repeated noncompliance justified dismissal |
| Whether the court abused its discretion in denying EEOC’s motion to compel broader discovery about TAD and policy change | EEOC: needed broader discovery to show why pregnant employees were excluded and to probe intent | Walmart: requested materials beyond relevance; change in policy is later remedial measure (Rule 407) and non‑documentary discovery was undue | Affirmed — denial within district court’s broad discovery discretion and EEOC failed to show substantial prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 575 U.S. 206 (2015) (adopted McDonnell Douglas‑style framework for PDA disparate‑treatment claims and explained step‑two/three analysis)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (established burden‑shifting framework for disparate‑treatment claims)
- Legg v. Ulster County, 820 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2016) (considered similar workers’‑compensation justification for limiting light duty; facts distinguishable)
- General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125 (1976) (prior holding that pregnancy is not sex discrimination, which Congress later addressed via the Pregnancy Discrimination Act)