Aswell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Rebecca Aswell, a former Wal-Mart cashier in Alabama, sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act. She alleged the company failed to accommodate her disability (sciatica and knee conditions) by refusing to let her use a stool while working, and that her subsequent termination was retaliatory. Wal-Mart argued that standing was an essential job function and that Aswell was not a qualified individual with a disability. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama granted summary judgment to Wal-Mart. On November 7, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that Aswell failed to demonstrate she could perform the essential functions of her job with or without reasonable accommodation, and that she did not show Wal-Mart's stated legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination was pretextual.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart, dismissing all disability discrimination and retaliation claims.

Whether Aswell was a qualified individual with a disability capable of performing essential job functions; whether Wal-Mart's denial of a stool constituted a failure to accommodate; and whether her termination was in retaliation for requesting accommodation, in violation of the ADA.

The decision highlights the rigorous standard for proving disability discrimination under the ADA, emphasizing that employees must show they can perform essential job functions. It illustrates the difficulty plaintiffs face in establishing pretext when an employer articulates a legitimate business justification for adverse employment actions.