A Wisconsin jury took just 3 hours to slap Walmart with a $125 million discrimination and wrongful termination verdict. This came after a four-day trial where the jurors heard from the fired employee, a woman with Down Syndrome named Marlo, and Walmart. Marlo was represented by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). You’ll hear her side of the story in a moment. But first, here is what Walmart had to say about her. Spoiler: the jury REALLY didn’t like it.
Not only did they insist Marlo deserved to be fired, but their corporate ethics manager even claimed they were “too lenient” on her. To rub salt in the wound, Walmart barred Marlo’s managers from communicating with her and her family when they tried to help her keep her job. All this after Marlo served Walmart well for over 15 years.
So why did Walmart target Marlo for discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination? What did she do that made them treat her so badly that a jury felt $125 million in punitive damages was proper?
Let’s discuss what Marlo allegedly did wrong, what Walmart did in retaliation, why the jury hit them with such a large verdict, and how an old law from 1991 saved Walmart from facing any serious consequences.
A Model Employee with Special Needs
Marlo Spaeth was a model employee for over 15 years. In that time, her managers said she met or exceeded expectations. She never got a write up for attendance or unexcused absences.
But there’s something else about Marlo. She had Down Syndrome. Down Syndrome is hard to miss, even if you do not know the person well. Managers who worked with Marlo testified that they knew she had Down Syndrome because it was visibly obvious. Remember this, because it casts serious doubt on Walmart’s excuse for what it did to Marlo.
Walmart Gives Marlo an Impossible Schedule
Marlo deserves a lot of credit. Down Syndrome prevented her from participating in many life activities we take for granted. She was unable to drive, and she could hardly afford a vehicle with her low pay. She depended on a fixed bus schedule to commute to work. On top of that, her disability made standing for long periods extremely painful.
But Marlo was a reliable worker. For years, she was scheduled to work from 12:00pm to 4:00pm. Managers personally approved her accommodated work schedule. For the record, a modified work schedule can be a form of reasonable accommodation under the ADA and applicable state laws.
Walmart Changes its Schedule Policy to Lock Marlo Out
In November 2014, Walmart changed its scheduling policy. A computer-generated schedule assigned shifts, and managers were no longer allowed to make changes absent a “business justification.” Apparently, the bigwigs at Walmart’s corporate office didn’t consider disability accommodations to be a “business justification,” because Marlo’s shift got changed from 12:00pm to 4:00pm to 1:00pm to 5:30pm.
For people unburdened by a disability, it’s a small change. But for Marlo, it was a massive obstacle. She relied on a bus schedule to get to work. She had a disability that hindered her ability to work later in the day. The extra thirty minutes caused her to overheat.
On top of that, she needed a consistent, predictable schedule. The sudden change confused Marlo. Her sister testified that Marlo told her the schedule was wrong, and she didn’t understand what Walmart was doing to her.
A multi-billion dollar corporation has the resources to work with someone like Marlo, just as they did for 15 years without incident. Instead, they chose to bully someone who couldn’t even understand what was happening to her.
Personally, I found this to be one of the most upsetting parts of the case, and I think it contributed to the jury hitting them with such massive punitive damages.
But it gets worse. Way worse. About $125 million worse.
Walmart’s Big Stinking Pile of Excuses
Walmart first tried the “undue hardship” excuse. This is when companies claim that if a requested accommodation, such as an adjusted work schedule, conflicts with company policy, then that makes it an “undue hardship.”
This excuse is bogus.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires most employers with at least 15 workers to provide reasonable accommodations for their disabilities. This is mandatory. The employer cannot deny a reasonable accommodation request unless it presents an “undue hardship.” But an employer’s own policy does not create a hardship out of thin air. For example, a blanket policy against schedule adjustments does NOT override the requirement to provide reasonable accommodations.
Walmart Twists the Knife
Apart from its policy defense, Walmart had not one, not two, but three other excuses that call their entire defense into question.
1. Walmart claimed they didn’t “know” Marlo needed a reasonable accommodation because they didn’t have a doctor’s note.
Why this fails: A doctor’s note can establish medical necessity, and it can describe work limitations, but the law doesn’t require a doctor’s note for reasonable accommodations. Instead, employers are deemed “on notice” of the disability when they know or reasonably should know the employee has a disability. In Marlo’s case, it was apparent to anyone who interacted with her that she had Down Syndrome.
2. Walmart’s Regional Head of People barred Walmart personnel from communicating with Marlo and her family.
Why this fails: Federal disability accommodation laws require an interactive process. This is a back-and-forth between the employer, the employee, and often the employee’s medical providers or guardians. The purpose of the interactive process is to find suitable accommodations to help the employee keep working. In this case, Walmart had a legal obligation to engage in the interactive process. Its Head of People knew better; they chose not to be better.
3. Walmart pointed to bogus write ups as proof it was “too lenient” on Marlo.
Why this fails: This excuse gives me the impression Walmart was trying to make the jury hate them. After changing Marlo’s schedule (and then refusing to speak with her), they started a retaliation campaign. Marlo didn’t have any attendance-related write ups in over 15 years. But in her final weeks, Walmart slapped her with 17 infractions. We call this file-padding: when an employer stuffs your file with write ups to justify a termination.
A $125 Million Jury Verdict
The jury heard both sides. They saw all the evidence, including Walmart’s complete version of events. They felt that the company’s behavior was so outrageous and unacceptable that only a very large verdict could teach them a lesson. This is a company that earned over $690 Billion in 2025, after all.
The jurors went home thinking justice had been served. But Walmart wasn’t done fighting yet.
A Loophole from 1991 Helped Walmart Dodge Responsibility
Unfortunately, Marlo’s win was short-lived.
Remember that a jury found Walmart did break the law. They found the company discriminated against Marlo because of her disability, they refused to accommodate her disability, and they wrongfully fired her. The question, therefore, was not “Did Walmart break the law?” It was “How much should the company pay to punish and deter them from doing it again?”
When Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, they included a statutory cap on damages for cases involving employment discrimination under federal law.
Caps on Certain Federal Discrimination Claims
The caps do not apply to all cases, just federal statutes. For state laws, such as California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), these caps do not apply. But here are some kinds of claims that are capped:
- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
- The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the statute Marlo sued under
- The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA)
The cap varies based on the size of the employer. Under the Act (42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)), compensatory damages, including punitive damages, were capped based on the size of the employer:
- 15 to 100 employees: $50,000
- 101 to 200 employees: $100,000
- 201 to 500 employees: $200,000
- 501+ employees: $300,000
“Punishable By Fine Means Legal for a Price”
For an ultra-large employer like Walmart, which employs about 1.6 million people in the U.S. alone, the most they can be ordered to pay in compensatory damages is a measly $300,000.00. Adjusted for inflation, which Congress has not done since 1991, this should be about $744,245.17 in 2026 (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator).
Still, the current cap is a drop in the bucket for a company like Walmart. For reference, it earns $300,000 about every 13 seconds. Even adjusted for inflation, it is nowhere near enough to deter discriminatory conduct.
As the old saying goes, “Punishable by fine means legal for a price.” And the larger a company gets, the more affordable discrimination becomes.
What is An Employment Discrimination Claim Worth?
The monetary value of an employment discrimination claim depends on several factors. It is typically the sum of lost wages, back-pay, lost benefits, emotional distress (when applicable) and punitive damages. Employers can also be ordered to pay an employee’s attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses.
Federal claims, such as Title VII, have compensatory damages capped by statute. The maximum amount is $300,000, but things like lost wages and attorney’s fees can be added on top of that.
For state claims, such as California’s FEHA, these federal caps do not apply.
Marlo’s case highlights a few key issues that need to be addressed:
- Discrimination is illegal, but federal caps on discrimination claims do not adequately deter large employers.
- Employees can face discrimination even after years of good service.
- Employers must engage in the interactive process to find ways to accommodate an employee’s disability. A company policy against your specific accommodation is not enough for them to legally deny the accommodation.
- Congress must remove the cap or, at a bare minimum, adjust it for inflation.
How to Protect Yourself
I wrote The Ultimate Guide to Your Rights at Work specifically to help you navigate challenges like what Marlo faced. My workers’ rights law firm practices employment law in California, which is an at-will state. Based on my years of experience, and after winning millions of dollars for my clients, I took all those lessons and put them in one easy-to-read book so you never feel alone.
And if you need help with a wrongful termination or discrimination claim, my office line is always open.
Facing disability discrimination at work? Get a free case evaluation.
Common Questions About Disability Discrimination Claims
Why was Walmart’s $125 million verdict reduced to $300,000?
The Civil Rights Act of 1991 caps compensatory and punitive damages in federal employment discrimination cases based on employer size. For employers with 501 or more employees, the cap is $300,000, no matter how large the jury’s verdict was.
Does the federal damages cap apply to California cases?
No. The federal caps apply to federal statutes such as Title VII, the ADA, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) is a state law and is not subject to those caps.
Does an employer need a doctor’s note before providing a reasonable accommodation?
No. A doctor’s note can help establish medical necessity and describe limitations, but the law does not require one. An employer is on notice when it knows or reasonably should know that an employee has a disability.
Can a company policy override the duty to accommodate a disability?
No. An employer cannot deny a reasonable accommodation simply because it conflicts with company policy. A blanket policy against schedule changes does not create an undue hardship on its own.
What is the interactive process?
It is the required back and forth between the employer, the employee, and often the employee’s doctors or guardians, aimed at finding an accommodation that lets the employee keep working. Refusing to engage in it is itself a violation.
What is a discrimination claim worth?
It typically combines lost wages, back pay, lost benefits, emotional distress where applicable, and punitive damages, and employers can also be ordered to pay attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. Federal claims are subject to the statutory cap on compensatory damages; California state claims are not.
This is educational content for discussion and information only. It is not legal advice for any specific situation. General tips are presented as my opinion. Nothing in this post replaces the professional advice of an attorney in your jurisdiction. Nothing in this post is a promise of any specific outcome. Client details have been omitted to preserve confidentiality and emphasize educational value. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING: The choice of a lawyer is an important decision which should not be made on ads alone.
