Walmart Point System Lawsuits: EEOC Settlements and Pregnancy Class Action

Walmart’s attendance point system has drawn a decade of litigation, with workers, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and advocacy groups arguing in a series of Walmart point system lawsuits that the “no-fault” policy illegally penalizes employees for absences protected by federal and state law. The cases have produced EEOC probable cause findings, individual settlements totaling several hundred thousand dollars, a pregnancy discrimination class action in New York, and a wave of wrongful termination suits in California. They have also pushed Walmart to add paid time off and temporarily suspend the policy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

How the Point System Works

Walmart’s hourly workers accrue points for unscheduled absences, late arrivals, and early departures. A Walmart “people lead” testified in a 2023 deposition that employees can be fired after accumulating five points in a rolling six-month period.¹ An earlier version of the policy described in a 2018 class action set the threshold at four points for new employees and nine for longer-tenured workers over the same window.²

Because the system is “no-fault,” points accrue regardless of why the worker missed the shift. Points can also cost employees pay raises and promotions, not just their jobs.³

Walmart does offer Protected Paid Time Off, which shields an unplanned absence from points when applied within seven days through the timekeeping system; no doctor’s note is required.⁴ PPTO does not cover a “no call/no show,” and workers without a sufficient PPTO balance still receive points even if ordinary paid time off covers their wages.⁵

The Core Legal Claim

The lawsuits share a theory: the automated system does not distinguish between an unexcused absence and one legally protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, pregnancy accommodation laws, or state worker protections. The 2017 report “Pointing Out: How Walmart Unlawfully Punishes Workers for Medical Absences,” published by the advocacy organization A Better Balance, surveyed more than 1,000 current and former Walmart employees and accused the company of refusing doctors’ notes, punishing workers for FMLA- and ADA-protected absences, and failing to tell employees when their absences might qualify for protection.⁶ The report described an “ostrich approach,” with supervisors insulated from the medical reasons behind absences so that Walmart’s duty to accommodate was never triggered. It also faulted the leave-request process run by third-party administrator Sedgwick.⁷

A Better Balance had already filed a class-based “pattern and practice” EEOC charge in November 2016 attacking the policy on disability and medical grounds.⁸ That charge seeded most of the litigation that followed.

EEOC Cases and Settlements

The most significant single development came in March 2020, when the EEOC issued a probable cause determination that Walmart’s attendance policy likely violated the ADA. The finding grew out of a 2017 charge filed on behalf of Virginia James, a Walmart employee of nearly ten years with asthma and diabetes who was terminated under the point system. Walmart temporarily suspended the attendance policy during the pandemic that was unfolding at the same moment.⁹ A Better Balance later filed a federal suit on James’s behalf in February 2023, Virginia James v. Walmart Stores East LP, Walmart Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00633, alleging ADA and South Carolina Human Affairs Law violations.¹⁰ The parties settled in October 2023 on undisclosed terms.¹¹

The EEOC has brought and resolved several of its own cases over the policy’s handling of disability-related absences.

Three North Carolina Cases: $175,000 Combined (October 2024)

Statesville (Case No. 5:23-cv-00044): $85,000 for a deli associate with a gastrointestinal impairment fired in April 2017 after Walmart refused intermittent leave despite doctors’ notes.
Henderson (Case No. 5:23-cv-00218): $50,000 for a shelf stocker with epilepsy whose seizure absences were not excused despite a supervisor’s prior agreement.
Raleigh (Case No. 5:23-cv-00160): $40,000 for a general merchandise manager with epilepsy who requested intermittent leave in July 2017, was denied, demoted, and then fired for attendance.¹²

The settlements also barred Walmart from refusing intermittent leave as an accommodation, from assessing points for disability-related absences, and from leaving employees without a mechanism to request ADA accommodations. The company agreed to annual training, posted notices, and compliance reporting.¹³

Farmingdale, New York: $60,000 (December 2025)

A consent decree in EEOC v. Walmart, Case No. 1:23-cv-06902 (E.D.N.Y.), resolved claims brought on behalf of Donna Livermore, a customer availability process associate with hearing, speech, and cognitive impairments. Livermore had received positive performance ratings since 2017, but in January 2020 new management stopped the accommodations that helped her understand her daily tasks. She was fired for “insubordination” after the ensuing conflict.¹⁴ The decree requires one hour of interactive ADA training for HR personnel and salaried managers at the store, intranet notices, and compliance reports over a one-year term.¹⁵

Bullhead City, Arizona: $100,000

Walmart paid $100,000 to settle EEOC claims that it fired cashier Stevey Wiman after refusing to continue excusing her seizure-related absences, with her written accommodation request still pending. The deal included a two-year injunction covering management training, workplace notices, policy review, and reporting.¹⁶

The Pregnancy Class Action in New York

Kaitlyn Hoover and Leigha Klopp filed Hoover v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in New York Supreme Court, Orleans County, in July 2018, alleging the attendance policy violated the New York Pregnant Workers Fairness Act by giving no accommodation for pregnancy-related absences and firing pregnant workers once they hit the point threshold.¹⁷ Walmart denied the allegations, saying it had processes for “legally protected and authorized absences, such as medical-related accommodation, FMLA leave, pregnancy and bereavement that are not counted against our attendance policy.”²

In early 2019, Walmart added 48 hours of paid time off, equivalent to six eight-hour shifts, that employees could use for personal or family emergencies without incurring points. A Better Balance called the PTO addition a “big improvement” but criticized an accompanying proposal to lower the termination threshold, warning it could make the policy “even more harsh.” The group also said that as of February 2019 Walmart had not confirmed whether pregnancy-related absences would be specifically authorized under the revised policy.¹⁸

California Wrongful Termination Suits

Starting in late 2022, the firm West Coast Trial Lawyers began filing wrongful termination suits in California state courts. By February 2024, the firm had filed three suits against Walmart (and four against Amazon), each arguing that automated tracking fails to filter out protected absences and that managers often fail to log approved accommodations.¹

Two cases have become public. David Wagner alleged he was fired in July 2022 for attendance issues while out sick with COVID-19. His case was filed in Riverside County Superior Court, removed to federal court, and remanded in April 2023 after a judge found Walmart had not shown the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.¹⁹ Larreon Murphy alleged he was fired in November 2023 for “excessive absences” despite management clearance to arrive late. His complaint, filed in Sacramento County Superior Court in January 2024, says a manager later admitted the termination was wrongful and attempted a “bad faith” reinstatement to a conflicting shift to force a resignation.¹

Attorney Nick Yasman argued that Walmart’s national attendance policies fail to account for the more restrictive worker protections of states like California and New York. Walmart spokesperson Kelly Hellbusch said the company would “continue to defend the company against this litigation.”¹

What Has Actually Changed

Taken together, the lawsuits have produced partial reform rather than an overhaul. Walmart added 48 hours of emergency PTO in 2019 and later introduced Protected Paid Time Off that shields qualifying absences from points. The EEOC settlements have forced training, posting, policy review, and compliance reporting at specific stores in North Carolina, New York, and Arizona, and have barred Walmart from assessing points for disability-related absences at those locations. The California wrongful termination suits remain active, and advocacy groups continue to file individual EEOC charges, including a December 2022 charge for Ernest Paschal II, an Asset Protection Door Host allegedly fired after calling out sick while suffering from sepsis.³ The underlying no-fault structure, with points accruing automatically for unscheduled absences, remains in place.

1
Business Insider. Walmart, Amazon Lawsuits Employee Attendance Tracking Points System Policy
2
ClassAction.org. Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Walmarts Unscheduled Absence Policy Systematically Hurts Pregnant Employees
3
A Better Balance. Walmart Abusive Attendance – Ernest Paschal
4
Walmart. Associate FAQ – Protected Paid Time Off
5
Walmart. Manager FAQ – Protected Paid Time Off
6
New York Times. Walmart Workers Sick Days
7
A Better Balance. Pointing Out: How Walmart Unlawfully Punishes Workers for Medical Absences
8
A Better Balance. Pointing Out Report Press Release
9
A Better Balance. EEOC Finds That Walmarts Attendance Policy Likely Violates Americans With Disabilities Act
10
A Better Balance. ABB Files Federal Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against Walmart on Behalf of Client Virginia James
11
Law360. Walmart Fired Cashier Settle Her Disability Bias Suit
12
EEOC. Walmart Pay $175,000 To Settle Three EEOC Disability Discrimination Suits
13
ADA Southeast. Walmart To Pay $175,000 To Settle Three EEOC Disability Discrimination Suits
14
GovInfo. EEOC v. Walmart Consent Decree, Case No. 1:23-cv-06902
15
EEOC. Walmart Pay $60,000 EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
16
ADA Pacific. Arizona Walmart To Pay $100,000 in EEOC Disability Lawsuit
17
A Better Balance. Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Walmarts Absence Control Policy Discriminates Against Pregnant Workers
18
A Better Balance. Walmart Changes Its Absence Policy Following Groundbreaking Report and Lawsuit
19
vLex. Wagner v. Wal-Mart Associates Inc.