Cancer Survivor Receives $75K after Alleging that Company Refused to Accommodate Her

  • Over 100 Years of Experience

    Our dedicated attorneys have a reputation for success.

    Meet Our Team
  • Our Awards Set Us Apart

    Learn about our distinguishing awards & how this benefits you.

    What It Means For You
  • Client Testimonials

    Many satisfied clients have used Schwartz Perry & Heller.

    What They Have to Say
  • Request Your Consultation

    Contact our firm today to learn how we can help you.

    Get Started Now

Cancer Survivor Receives $75K after Alleging that Company Refused to Accommodate Her

Cancer Survivor Receives $75K after Alleging that Company Refused to Accommodate Her

Wal-Mart employee with physical limitations says she was forced to stand

Fighting cancer is hard enough, but for many working people, dealing with the disease is only the beginning of the fight.

For far too many Americans, being employed while having a serious illness comes with its own battles. Often, people require accommodations so they can remain on the job.

Unfortunately, it’s not unusual for workers to be denied those accommodations, even when doing so may violate federal law.

Let’s took a look at how a recent case played out and then discuss what it means to you.

Help revoked

Nancy Stack was fighting bone cancer. Because of weakness in one of her legs, she asked if she could use a chair while working as a fitting room attendant at a local Wal-Mart. Her request was granted.

As Stack’s cancer treatments progressed, she began to find it difficult to work an entire shift. She requested a modified schedule that would allow her to work for shorter periods. Again, the company complied.

However, several months later, Stack says that her scheduling accommodations were revoked.

In addition to that, Stack says she was told that if she still needed to use a chair while working in the fitting room, she’d need to go to the furniture department to retrieve one. This task proved to be extremely difficult for Stack because of her physical limitations.

Hide and seek

But then things got even worse. Stack claims she was transferred from working in the fitting room to a greeter position. That job required her to stand near the front door and greet customers as they arrived.

Stacks also alleges that several of her coworkers imitated her limp, called her names, and repeatedly hid her chair. She says she complained to management but nothing was done.

Stack complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which sued on her behalf. It alleged that Wal-Mart discriminated against Stack because of her disability.

Rather than have to defend itself against Stack’s allegations in court, the company decided to settle. It must pay Stack $75,000.

What the law says

The ADA provides protection from discrimination for workers who may require job accommodations. It directs that companies must engage in an interactive process with workers to determine the appropriate accommodations.

However, businesses may deny accommodations that would pose a hardship. For example, companies would generally not be expected to adopt accommodations that would disrupt their business operations.

In this case, since the company had allowed Stack’s accommodations for several months before revoking them, it would’ve been tough to prove a business hardship in court.

Contact us today

If you believe that your rights under the ADA have been violated, it’s a good idea to speak to an attorney.

Call or email us today to discuss your unique situation.

Comments

No Comments Posted

Contact Us

Schwartz Perry & Heller LLP
New York Employment Law Attorney
Located at: 3 Park Ave.,
27th Floor,

New York, NY 10016
View Map
Phone: (646) 490-0221
Local Phone: (212) 889-6565
Website:
© 2018 All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.