Kroger Pays $75K After Ghosting Employee Requiring Reasonable Accommodation
A breast cancer survivor asked for a stool. She got silence instead.
That silence—spanning months of unanswered calls, canceled shifts, and corporate indifference—cost The Kroger Co. $75,000 and a federal lawsuit. For employers across the country, this case is more than a cautionary tale. It’s a blueprint for exactly what not to do when an employee requests a disability accommodation.
Here’s what happened, why it violated federal law, and what every employer needs to understand before they make the same mistake.
What Happened at Kroger’s Atlanta Store
The employee in question was hired as a cashier at a Kroger location in Atlanta’s Edgewood retail district. Her medical history was significant: she had survived breast cancer, but the treatment left her with permanent nerve damage to her lower extremities. Standing for extended periods wasn’t just uncomfortable—it was a genuine medical issue.
Her request was straightforward. She asked to sit on a stool or chair during her shifts and backed it up with supporting medical documentation. Simple. Reasonable. Documented.
Kroger’s response? The store stopped scheduling her entirely.
Over the following weeks, she called repeatedly. No one answered. No one called back. She filed an internal complaint with the company. Still nothing. Months passed without a single scheduled shift.
In July 2023, she notified Kroger that she had filed a charge of disability discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The company’s response this time was swift—but not in the way she needed. Kroger informed her that any further communication would need to go through her attorney and their legal team. From that point forward, the company made no attempt to contact her or schedule her to work.
In short: she reported discrimination, and Kroger went silent for good.
Why This Conduct Violates the ADA
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is federal law. It prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in hiring, firing, compensation, training, or any other term or condition of employment.
Critically, the ADA doesn’t just ban outright discrimination. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for qualified employees with disabilities—unless doing so would create an “undue hardship,” defined as significant difficulty or expense given the employer’s size, resources, and operational structure.
A stool. For a cashier. At a national grocery chain with billions in annual revenue.
The idea that seating for a cancer survivor with nerve damage would constitute “undue hardship” for Kroger doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
Reasonable accommodations under the ADA can include:
- Modified job duties to reduce physical strain
- Schedule adjustments to accommodate medical appointments
- Work area changes, such as providing seating or relocating a workstation
- Reassignment to a vacant position better suited to the employee’s needs
- Mechanical or equipment aids to support the employee’s function
What the law does not permit: ignoring accommodation requests, cutting off an employee’s hours without explanation, and then going completely dark after an EEOC charge is filed.
That last part is where the retaliation claim comes in. The ADA explicitly prohibits retaliation against any employee who requests an accommodation, files an internal complaint, or pursues a discrimination charge with the EEOC. Kroger’s decision to cease all contact after learning of the EEOC filing crossed that legal line clearly and directly.
Why Employers Keep Getting This Wrong
Cases like this one aren’t flukes. They reflect patterns of misunderstanding—and in some instances, willful disregard—that appear across industries.
Misconception 1: Future risk or cost justifies inaction. Some employers hesitate to accommodate disabled workers out of concern that doing so will raise insurance premiums or create ongoing operational issues. Under both the ADA and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), these are not legally acceptable reasons to deny accommodation or discriminate.
Misconception 2: “Reasonable” means optional. The word “reasonable” in the ADA doesn’t give employers room to simply decline without exploring alternatives. The law requires a genuine, good-faith effort to find a workable solution before any denial is considered.
Misconception 3: Silence isn’t retaliation. Cutting off shifts and communication in the weeks and months following an accommodation request—and then going fully silent after an EEOC charge—is retaliation. It doesn’t require a termination letter or an explicit threat. The pattern of conduct is enough.
Misconception 4: Poor procedures are just an internal problem. When accommodation requests aren’t documented, tracked, or responded to in a timely way, employers lose their ability to demonstrate good-faith compliance. That absence of documentation becomes evidence.
The Settlement and What Kroger Agreed to Do
The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (EEOC v. The Kroger Co., Case No. 1:25-cv-00272). The case was resolved through a two-year consent decree that includes:
- $75,000 in monetary relief paid to the former cashier
- Updated complaint procedures within the company
- Specialized training for store leaders and HR personnel who handle disability accommodation requests
- Workplace notices informing employees of the settlement and their right to be free from discrimination
- Periodic EEOC reporting on how accommodation requests are received and handled
Marcus G. Keegan, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District, was direct in his assessment: “When an employee requests reasonable accommodations for their disability or files a complaint of discrimination, their employer cannot simply ignore them.”
Darrell E. Graham, director of the EEOC’s Atlanta District, added: “Employers cannot shirk their legal obligations under the ADA.”
The settlement is both a financial penalty and a corrective framework—one that Kroger is now legally obligated to follow and report on.
What Every Employer Should Take Away From This Case
This case distills into a set of obligations that apply to every employer covered by the ADA—which includes any business with 15 or more employees.
Respond promptly and in writing. When an employee submits an accommodation request, acknowledge it quickly and document every step of the process. Silence is not neutral—it’s potential evidence of neglect or retaliation.
Engage in an interactive process. The ADA expects a good-faith dialogue between employer and employee to identify workable solutions. This isn’t optional. Skipping it and simply denying a request—or worse, quietly pulling someone off the schedule—creates significant legal exposure.
Take retaliation risk seriously. Any adverse action taken against an employee after they request an accommodation, file an internal complaint, or contact the EEOC is legally dangerous territory. This includes scheduling changes, reduced hours, demotion, or simply going silent.
Train your people. Store managers, HR personnel, and frontline supervisors need to understand what the ADA requires. Without training, well-intentioned employees can still make legally costly decisions.
Build real procedures. Accommodation requests need a clear intake process, documented responses, and escalation paths. If your organization lacks these, you’re operating without a safety net.
The Cost of Looking Away
Disability discrimination cases carry more than a dollar figure. There’s the reputational damage. The EEOC reporting obligations. The court-mandated training. The public settlement notice posted in the workplace itself.
For this particular employee—a breast cancer survivor who asked for nothing more than a chair—the harm was deeply personal. She provided medical documentation. She followed the process. She made phone calls that were never returned. She went months without income or communication from a company that had hired her and then, for all practical purposes, pretended she didn’t exist.
The ADA was designed precisely for situations like this one. And the EEOC’s enforcement of it sends a clear signal: accommodation obligations aren’t suggestions, and retaliation isn’t a viable strategy.
If you or someone you know has been denied reasonable workplace accommodations, had shifts cut after filing a complaint, or experienced retaliation following an EEOC charge, you may have legal recourse. Contact Helmer Friedman LLP for a confidential disability discrimination consultation. Our disability discrimination attorneys have over 20 years of experience advocating for employees whose rights have been violated—and we’re here to help you understand your options.