Maryland Suit Alleges Disability, Race Discrimination; Claims Schedule Changes, Denied Transfers

Terrance Crampton filed a complaint on March 3, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland under docket number 1:26-cv-00901, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and race and asserting that schedule changes and denied transfer requests were retaliatory actions. The filing identifies Crampton as the named plaintiff and frames the schedule and transfer allegations as central acts of retaliation.

The Maryland private suit arrives amid separate federal enforcement actions by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that assert related failures to accommodate employees with disabilities. In the Northern District of California matter captioned EEOC v. Walmart, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-5484, the EEOC charged on June 30, 2025 that, “Walmart, Inc. violated federal law when it failed to provide a readily available reasonable accommodation for an employee with a disability, which would have allowed her to return to work; instead, the company placed her on unpaid leave.” That complaint, involving a longtime employee at Walmart’s San Leandro, California store, alleges the company repeatedly refused to reinstate or reassign the worker after an approved leave despite positive performance in Walmart’s Temporary Alternative Duty program. The EEOC sought back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and appropriate injunctive relief in that filing, and the agency says it first attempted administrative conciliation before bringing suit.

A separate EEOC action filed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, identified as EEOC v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 25-cv-1480 and announced in a September 26, 2025 press release, alleges a Wisconsin location “tolerated harassment and failed to accommodate employee with intellectual disability.” The Wisconsin complaint alleges Walmart denied a reasonable accommodation of a job coach, refusing to speak with job coaches assisting the employee at no cost, and that “store managers and human resources representatives did not allow the job coaches inside the facility and repeatedly refused to discuss the employee’s schedule, training needs, need for breaks, and harassment experience.” EEOC spokesperson Victor Chen said, “Employers have a legal obligation to work with employees who need accommodations for disabilities and to stop and prevent disability‑based harassment,” and added, “Individuals with disabilities, like all workers, deserve respect and have a right to earn a living without being subjected to discriminatory harassment in the workplace.”

The legal framework cited across filings is the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations unless they pose an undue hardship. Federal and Maryland authorities frequently look to precedent when resolving these claims, citing decisions such as Anderson v. Discovery Commc’ns, LLC, 814 F. Supp. 2d 562 (D. Md. 2011) and Ridgely v. Montgomery County, 164 Md. App. 214, 883 A.2d 182 (2005), as well as Fourth Circuit authorities including Brown v. General Serv. Admin., Zografov v. V.A. Medical Center, Smith v. First Union Nat’l Bank, and Sydnor v. Fairfax County.

With Crampton’s March 3, 2026 filing in District of Maryland docket 1:26-cv-00901 and the EEOC actions in California and Wisconsin already pending in federal court under Case Nos. 4:25-cv-5484 and 25-cv-1480, respectively, multiple federal suits now assert that Walmart faced allegations of failing to accommodate workers and of disability‑based harassment across different states.