She Asked for a Stool After Cancer Treatment and Kroger Simply Stopped Scheduling Her — Then the EEOC Made Them Pay $75,000

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

There are a lot of jobs that ask you to stand all day, and most of us have probably just accepted that as “normal.” But there’s a big difference between a tough shift and an employer deciding you’re inconvenient the moment you ask for something reasonable. A federal case involving Kroger puts that difference in plain view.

In an EEOC press release summarizing the lawsuit and settlement, the agency says a cashier at a Kroger store in Atlanta requested a simple accommodation after breast cancer treatment left her with permanent nerve damage in her lower extremities. The details are laid out in the original post, and they read like the kind of quiet workplace mistreatment that can happen without anyone ever raising their voice.

The allegation isn’t that somebody yelled at her or wrote her up for poor performance. It’s that after she asked for a stool or chair and provided medical documentation, the store stopped scheduling her at all and ignored her calls. If that’s accurate, it’s a cold way to push someone out: no confrontation, no paperwork, just silence.

A simple request after a hard season

According to the EEOC, the employee was a breast cancer survivor whose treatments caused permanent nerve damage affecting her lower extremities. She was hired as a cashier at the Kroger in Atlanta’s Edgewood retail district, and shortly afterward she asked to sit on a stool or chair during her shifts. She didn’t just make a casual request either; the EEOC says she provided medical documentation to support the accommodation.

That matters because this is the point where a responsible employer should slow down, listen, and do what the law requires: engage the accommodation process in good faith. Most people can understand the human side without needing a law degree. If someone has fought through cancer treatment and is trying to work, you don’t punish them for asking to do the job in a way their body can handle.

How a schedule can be used as a weapon

The EEOC alleges that after the request, Kroger simply stopped scheduling her for shifts. That kind of move is easy to hide behind “staffing changes” or “business needs,” but for the person on the receiving end, it hits like a layoff you’re not allowed to call a layoff. The paycheck dries up, the routine disappears, and you’re left wondering if you did something wrong when all you did was ask.

The agency also says the store ignored her repeated phone calls. That’s not just poor communication; it’s the kind of behavior that leaves an employee with no path forward. If the company won’t talk to you and won’t schedule you, you’re effectively locked out of your job without being told you’re fired.

An internal complaint, then more silence

The press release says the employee filed an internal complaint after the store stopped scheduling her and ignored her calls. That’s a reasonable step, and it’s exactly what many workplaces tell employees to do: “Go through the proper channels.” The problem comes when the “proper channels” are treated like an annoyance instead of a responsibility.

Even after that internal complaint, the EEOC says months went by with no scheduled shifts. That detail is important because it suggests this wasn’t a one-week scheduling hiccup or a short-term misunderstanding. The allegation is that the company kept her on ice long enough that a normal person would feel pushed out.

After she mentioned the EEOC charge, contact was cut off

In July 2023, the employee informed Kroger that she had filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, according to the agency. The response described in the press release is blunt: Kroger told her that any further contact should be handled between her attorney and Kroger’s legal department. The EEOC says the company did not attempt to contact her or schedule her to work after that.

A lot of working people hear something like that and translate it pretty quickly: “We’re done dealing with you.” Even if the company saw it as a legal boundary line, it still left an employee without shifts and without direct communication. If the goal is to resolve a workplace problem, shutting the door like that doesn’t exactly help.

What the ADA requires, and what the EEOC says happened

The EEOC framed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits disability discrimination and retaliation. The ADA also requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities unless it would create an undue hardship. A stool or chair for a cashier is the kind of accommodation that, in many workplaces, is at least considered and discussed rather than ignored.

In the EEOC’s view, the alleged behavior crossed two lines: failing to accommodate and retaliating. Marcus G. Keegan, the EEOC’s regional attorney for the Atlanta District, said employers can’t ignore employees who request accommodations or file discrimination complaints. Darrell E. Graham, director of the EEOC’s Atlanta District, also stated that employers can’t shirk their legal obligations under the ADA.

The settlement: $75,000 and two years of oversight

Kroger agreed to settle, and the resolution includes $75,000 paid to the former cashier. Money matters because it’s tangible, and because it signals there was enough risk for the company to choose a settlement instead of dragging it out in court. Still, the dollar amount isn’t the only part of the agreement.

The two-year consent decree requires Kroger to update its complaint procedures and provide specialized training to store leaders and human resources personnel who receive and handle disability accommodation requests. The company must also post a notice in the workplace informing employees of the settlement and their right to be free from discrimination. On top of that, Kroger will provide periodic reports to the EEOC about disability accommodation requests and how they were handled.

The everyday lesson for workplaces that want to stay decent

Most managers and supervisors aren’t thinking about federal consent decrees when they build a schedule. They’re thinking about coverage, call-outs, and whether the front end is going to fall apart during a rush. But a decent workplace can hold two ideas at once: the store needs to run, and a person with a legitimate medical need deserves a real conversation and a fair process.

If someone asks for an accommodation and you respond by ghosting them off the schedule, you’re not just risking legal trouble. You’re teaching everyone else what happens when they get sick, injured, pregnant, or old enough that their knees don’t cooperate anymore. And whether a company claims faith, family values, or just plain professionalism, that kind of message corrodes the place from the inside out.

The EEOC’s announcement doesn’t claim perfection on anyone’s part, but it does paint a clear picture of what not to do: ignore the request, ignore the person, and then wall off communication once lawyers show up. A stool is a small thing, and that’s what makes the story stick. If a company can’t handle a small, documented accommodation with basic respect, it’s hard to trust them with the bigger hardships people eventually bring to work.