HR Stopped Excusing Her Seizure Absences and Fired Her While Her Accommodation Request Was Still Pending — Then She Filed a Charge and Walmart Settled

Photo credit: AI-generated image created using ChatGPT. Illustrative only.

Most workplaces talk a good game about “supporting employees,” right up until someone’s real life becomes inconvenient. That’s why this settlement out of Arizona is worth paying attention to, especially if you’ve ever had to ask a boss for a little patience while you dealt with a health issue.

In a federal disability discrimination case brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Walmart agreed to pay $100,000 and provide other relief after the agency alleged a cashier was fired because seizures caused her to miss work. The details are laid out in the source material, and they read like the kind of slow-motion problem that happens when policy and people get out of sync.

The allegation wasn’t that the employee never showed up or refused to do her job. It was that she had seizures, missed work because of them, and then got punished for it even while trying to use the company’s own accommodation process. That’s the part that tends to make folks shake their head—because if an accommodation request is “pending,” you’d assume someone hits pause before pulling the trigger.

What the EEOC said happened at the Arizona store

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Walmart fired cashier Stevey Wiman at its Bullhead City, Arizona location because she had seizures that caused her to miss work. The agency said Walmart’s attendance policy allows absences to be excused for disability accommodations. For about two months, her absences were excused, and then human resources personnel allegedly told her they would no longer be.

The EEOC also said Wiman submitted a written request for accommodation as provided in Walmart’s attendance policy. The key detail is timing: the agency alleges she was fired while that request was still pending. In other words, the paperwork was in motion, but the job was already gone.

The problem with “we’ll stop excusing it”

Attendance policies sound simple until a real medical condition shows up. A lot of companies run on points, thresholds, and automated warnings because it keeps things “fair,” at least on paper. But if the policy also says disability-related absences can be excused as an accommodation, then someone has to do the uncomfortable work of making sure the system doesn’t bulldoze the person.

If the EEOC’s description is accurate, the shift from “excused” to “not excused” wasn’t just a clerical change—it was the moment the employee’s health became framed as misconduct. That’s a subtle but serious turn. It takes a person dealing with seizures and places them in the same bucket as someone skipping shifts because they didn’t feel like coming in.

What the ADA expects from employers

The EEOC said the alleged conduct violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities. The ADA is not a magic wand that erases job expectations, and it doesn’t force a business to accept anything and everything. But it does require employers to engage with accommodation requests in a real way, not just nod politely and keep moving toward discipline.

One practical example the EEOC specifically emphasized is attendance policies. Mary Jo O’Neill, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Phoenix District, said federal law requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations so employees with disabilities can do their jobs, and that includes making allowances in attendance policies for disability-related absences. If a company writes that principle into its own policy, it’s not optional when it becomes inconvenient.

Firing someone while the request is pending is a risky move

There are a few things in management life that should set off a warning bell, and “termination during an active accommodation request” is one of them. It’s the workplace equivalent of stepping into traffic while looking at your phone. Even if the company thinks it has reasons, the timing alone raises questions about whether the process was handled with patience and care.

The EEOC’s account suggests the employee did what many workplaces ask employees to do: follow the policy, submit the request, get the documentation in order. If the employer then goes ahead with discipline anyway—before the accommodation is resolved—it can look like the process was never meant to help in the first place. That’s not just bad optics; it can become a legal problem.

What the settlement requires Walmart to do

The case (EEOC v. Walmart, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-08118-GMS) was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona after the EEOC said it first tried to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process. The end result here wasn’t a trial verdict. It was a court-approved public decree.

Under that decree, Walmart will provide $100,000 to the cashier. The agreement also includes a two-year injunction against discrimination and “targeted relief,” including management and employee training, posting notices, and a policy review aimed at preventing future ADA violations. Walmart will also report to the EEOC for two years to ensure compliance.

The human side: why workers pay attention to cases like this

Health problems don’t ask for permission, and they don’t schedule themselves around a shift. Most people understand that, at least until they’re the one trying to cover a register, fill a schedule, or keep a department fully staffed. Pressure has a way of shrinking our compassion if we’re not careful.

Melinda Caraballo, district director of the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office, put it plainly: workers with disabilities shouldn’t have to worry that their disability will lead to discipline or termination, and corporations need to obey federal laws protecting workers with disabilities. Nobody’s saying a business can’t run standards. The point is that standards still have to leave room for reality—and the law requires that effort.

What to take from this if you’re an employee or a manager

If you’re an employee dealing with a disability, this is a reminder that written processes matter. The EEOC’s description highlights a written accommodation request submitted under the employer’s policy, and that detail becomes important when timelines and decisions get questioned later. It’s also a cue to keep your communication clear and documented, especially when your health is unpredictable.

If you’re a manager—or you’re the guy who ends up “handling” issues because nobody else will—this is a caution about rushing to discipline before the accommodation conversation is finished. It’s easy to let the attendance system drive the car while you sit in the passenger seat. But leadership means grabbing the wheel, slowing down, and making sure policy is serving people instead of flattening them.

Work is part of stewardship, and good stewardship includes how you treat people when they’re not operating at 100%. Not every request is reasonable, and not every job can flex in every way, but a pending accommodation isn’t the time for shortcuts. If nothing else, this settlement is a reminder that “we followed the policy” doesn’t hold up if the policy was never actually followed through.