July 27, 2014

Wal-Mart Settles EEOC Religious Discrimination Suit

Agency Obtains $70,000 for Mormon Worker Required to Work Sundays


SEATTLE – Retail giant Wal-Mart has agreed to pay $70,000 and implement preventive measures to resolve federal religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, in 2009 an assistant manager at the Colville, Wash., Walmart faced discipline and threats of termination because of his observation of the Sabbath. A devout Mormon, the employee observes the Sabbath by refraining from work, and from 1995 to 2009, Wal-Mart accommodated his request for leave on Sundays. In the fall of 2009, the company revised its scheduling system and refused to continue accommodating him as it had done in the past and began to discipline him, logging each absence when he was unable to swap positions with other managers.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to the sincere religious beliefs of employees, as long as the accommodations do not pose an undue hardship. After an investigation by EEOC Investigator Bryne Moore, and after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process, the agency filed suit (EEOC v. Wal-Mart, Inc. Case No. CV-10-0338-RMP) in the Western District of Washington.

Following a settlement conference with a U.S. Magistrate Judge, the EEOC and Wal-Mart agreed to resolve the lawsuit with the entry of a consent decree that provides $70,000 in monetary and other remedies, including training to human resource personnel on the subjects of religious accommodation and anti-retaliation.

“No one should have to choose between their faith and their work,” said EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo, whose office has jurisdiction over Washington. “Accommodating a long-time, dedicated employee is a sound business practice. And federal law clearly obligates employers to provide an employee with reasonable accommodation unless it poses an undue hardship. This settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of the lawsuit.”

“When there is a conflict between religion and workplace practices, solutions can often be low or no cost, if you approach it flexibly and creatively,” said San Francisco District Office Director Michael Baldonado. “Don’t leave your supervisors and management in doubt about how to respond to a request for accommodation. Make it clear that failing to accommodate sincerely-held religious beliefs may put the company in violation of the law.”

According to, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) employs more than two million workers at 8,400 retail stores under 55 different banners in 15 countries and had sales of $405 billion in fiscal year 2010.

© Copyright U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

About the Author

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

Most employers with at least 15...


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.