Appeals Court Rules EEOC Lawsuit vs. Wal-Mart Stands
WASHINGTON -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission can continue its disability discrimination lawsuit against Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart Stores Inc., an appeals court has ruled.
The EEOC filed the suit in January 2004, claiming that Wal-Mart violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it refused to hire a man who has cerebral palsy.
Wal-Mart has denied the accusation, and has cited its anti-discrimination policy in its defense.
In August 2005, a federal judge granted summary judgment to Wal-Mart, saying that the EEOC didn't present sufficient evidence in favor of the employee, Steven J. Bradley Jr.
The EEOC appealed, which led to the latest ruling. No new court dates have been set, according to reports.
In December 2001, the EEOC and Wal-Mart agreed to a $6.8 million national settlement of a discrimination suit. In that instance, the commission accused Wal-Mart of using a pre-employment questionnaire that violated the Americans with Disabilities Act between Jan. 1, 1994, and Dec. 31, 1998. The suit also covered several disabled employees' dismissals, or the company's failure to accommodate employees with disabilities.
The EEOC filed the suit in January 2004, claiming that Wal-Mart violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it refused to hire a man who has cerebral palsy.
Wal-Mart has denied the accusation, and has cited its anti-discrimination policy in its defense.
In August 2005, a federal judge granted summary judgment to Wal-Mart, saying that the EEOC didn't present sufficient evidence in favor of the employee, Steven J. Bradley Jr.
The EEOC appealed, which led to the latest ruling. No new court dates have been set, according to reports.
In December 2001, the EEOC and Wal-Mart agreed to a $6.8 million national settlement of a discrimination suit. In that instance, the commission accused Wal-Mart of using a pre-employment questionnaire that violated the Americans with Disabilities Act between Jan. 1, 1994, and Dec. 31, 1998. The suit also covered several disabled employees' dismissals, or the company's failure to accommodate employees with disabilities.