You are on page 1of 4

Redacted Nationwide Class EEOC Charge; Counsel for Charging Party - A Better Balance, Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, and

National Women's Law Center
Th lorm c fftad by th Privacy ct or 1974 Sfe ancocl Prvicy Al S:atecnanl nd other riCormetian or com1eg thi., lorn.

Criarge Praserite TQ

Aency(es) Charge





and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
S(Oo(Agcfloy ii Gny Name (IndIcate Mr, iNs., M.)

Home Piloru (IncL



Dk of Siriji

Stract Mdrea
CItt, Stale and ZIP Cd

Named a the Employer L.abor Organization, Employment Agency, ppreriticesNp Committee, or State o Lo;a Government Agency Thet I Seliave Discriminated Against Me or Othar. (If more than two, list ustderPARrICULARS lui)
Name No eya
, .


Phone No. (include Area Co

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (doing business as Walmart)
SreeI Addraao
Cly, Slate Crid ZIP Code

more than



hon Na. nclude Area Ceda

Street P,thIrc

City, Slate and ZIP Code

OtSCRNAi1ON 9ASED ON (Chocli cppoprtat tros(aa,L)







THE PpJTrCuLARs AE (Ir donaIpeperia ne-JdOo, atwh artra slIeec(sJJ




See attached pages.

is represented by counseL

I want ttlie ahure riled with both tile OC arid bia State or local Agency will adiso the agonclec IT I change my oec or phone number and I wilt cooperate tally with thorn In the pro:deeirig of my charge In accordance wIth their p’°da Ideclure under penalty of perjury that the above


NOTAR’t — V1ien nocaasary lbr Stale arid Local Agercy Requirein.arc I swear or effim, that I have read the abaue charge and that It the best otmv knowledce, b’iTormatton and belief. SIGNATURE OF COflP AIN ANT

is true and correct.

truo to

.1 \

Ctarging P;i& $Ignewra




Redacted Nationwide Class EEOC Charge; Counsel for Charging Party - A Better Balance, Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, and National Women's Law Center
Charge Presented To Agency(tes) Charge No(s):


Attachment to EEOC Charge of Discrimination against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Filed by Charging Party Charging Party is Represented by:

Mehri & Skalet, PLLC 1250 Connecticut Ave., NW, Ste. 300 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 822-5100 (202) 822-4997 (fax) National Women’s Law Center 11 Dupont Circle, NW, Ste. 800 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 588-5180 The particulars are: claims that her current employer, Wal-Mart Stores, On her own behalf, Inc. (Wal-Mart), discriminated against her on the basis of her gender and because of pregnancy and disability by: (1) failing to accommodate her during her pregnancy, such as providing light duty, temporary alternative duty, or other accommodations; (2) treating her differently from individuals similar in their ability or inability to work; (3) forcing her to take a leave of absence during her pregnancy when she was willing and able to work; and (4) transferring her to a lower paying position with fewer hours when she returned to work after the forced leave of absence. These practices violate Title VII of the CMI Rights Act of 1964 as amended and the Americans with Disabilities Act as amended.

also brings her charge of discrimination on behalf of all female Wal-Mart sales associates who have been employed by Wal-Mart within the 300 days prior to the filing of the charge of discrimination through the date the charge of discrimination and any resultant litigation is resolved. Wal-Mart has engaged in Systemic gender discrimination against the class in the following ways: (1) Wal-Mart has a pattern or practice of failing to accommodate pregnant employees and of failing to treat pregnant women the same as other individuals who are similar in their ability or inability to work; (2) Wal-Mart’s written policies regarding light duty, temporary alternative duty and accommodation facially discriminate against pregnant women by singling out pregnancy as a medical condition not subject to alternative duty, light duty or other accommodations; (3) Wal-Mart’s written policies do not treat pregnant workers the same

Redacted Nationwide Class EEOC Charge; Counsel for Charging Party - A Better Balance, Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, and National Women's Law Center
such as, for example, workers as workers who are similar in their ability or inability to work, Wal-Mart’s written policies and/or who have disabilities that require accommodation; and (4) workers to a subset of practice of providing temporary alternative duty or light duty to conditions on the employees with medical conditions (employees who contracted the outside the workplace premises) and not to workers who contracted their medical conditions VII of the Civil Rights has a disparate impact on female employees. These practices violate Title Act of 1964 as amended and the Americans with Disabilities Act as amended. While she is a sales associate at Wal-Mart Store ecame pregnant. iund the time she learned she was was working at Wal-Mart, I.hat she epartment, informed her manager in the pregnant, epartment of Wal-Mart during Lontinued to work in the was pregnant. needed to be her pregnancy. On the occasions that heavy boxes needed to be lifted or ladders co-workers completed these tasks. Then, after months of this climbed, lhat she needed to provide a note fron arrangem Wal-Mart management told her doctor to continue working at Wal-Mart.


,,provided Wal-Mart with a note from her On or aroun., icaI condition she could not lift more than 25 doctor stating that due to informed Wal-Mart that she wanted to continue to work. pounds or climb ladders. She asked to continue thárrangem’nt in which other employees lifted heavier boxes and climbed ladders when these tasks occasonaIly needed to be performed. Wal-Mart refused.

hat she was required to take an unpaid Wal-Mart told asked if she could be given an accommodation, but Wal-Mart leave of absence. told also refused. Wal-l9Firt Human Resources that Wal-Mart only accommodates people iEfi medical conditions that came froFworkiñj that Wal-Mart District HR, not the store manager, also told Wal-Mart. TFer she would be accommodated. controlled Wal-Mart forced nateIy appror gave birfFn to take an unpaid leave of absence beginning even though her baby was not due for several months. and returned to work at Wal-Mart on



eturned to work, Wal-Mart refused to reinstate her to her previous Department where she had been working associate position in the per hour. Instead, Wal-Mart assigned her to a oximately 40 hours a week at per hour and moved her to various departments, associate position at where she was not regularly assigned to work 40 hours a iFi?Iuding an hour, but Wal-Mart still does pay to week. Eveñtüally, Wal-Mart raised to work 40 hours a week. As such, Wal-Mart’s discrimination against not assign continues into the present.



Redacted Nationwide Class EEOC Charge; Counsel for Charging Party - A Better Balance, Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, and National Women's Law Center
about At no time did Wal-Mart engage in an interactive discussion with to continue her to allow and what accommodations might reasonably address her restrictions work, even though she had been able to perform her job by having her co-workers assist her, and even though she was also willing to be temporarily assigned to a different position which would not require heavy lifting or climbing. Wal-Mart accommodated individuals with other medical conditions at store, including an employee who had trouble moving her neck and employees who have 3.. trouble starding for long periods of time. Wal-Mart’s policies and practices with regard to accommodation of employees with ..xperiences at Wal medical conditions are centrally controlled, and, as such, Mart are similar to that of other female sales associates.

because of her gender, In summary, Wal-Mart discriminated against including her pregnancy and pregnancy related conditions, and because of her disability. Wal Mart has engaged in a pattern or practice of gender discrimination against female sales associates and in policies or practices that have a disparate impact against women. brings her charge of discrimination on behalf of herself and all similarly situated women.