Walmart Worker Says COVID Leave Mixup Led to Termination

A Walmart associate wrote on Jan. 4 that she was terminated after a bout of COVID and a breakdown in absence reporting that she says started with mixed instructions. She says she woke on Dec. 1 with nausea, a severe headache and a 101-degree fever, took two home tests shipped to employees in 2021 and a third office test brought by a nurse friend, all of which she said were positive. She notified her doctor and her workplace, and says her team lead told her to "call Sedgwick and file a LoA claim."

The employee said the trouble began with uncertainty about how to report each day of absence. "I didn’t realize I had to use the app for every day I missed instead I called in," she wrote, adding that store reminders told her to contact Sedgwick. It took two tries for her Sedgwick claim to go through, by which time she had already returned to work. She said management later told her the absences were counted as no-shows because she had not used the app, and that she was terminated for those absences. "Today I was terminated for absences because I called in instead of using the app therefore the absences were considered no show," she wrote.

The associate says she has been asked to meet with a team supervisor or the store manager in an attempt to regain her job. "They told me I come in tomorrow and speak with our team supervisor or the store manager and try to get back on staff," she wrote. She also defended her performance, noting positive customer feedback: "I know I’m good at job. In the short time I was there 4 different customers informed our team leaders how helpful I’d been; and no they were not friends or relatives."

The account illustrates how procedural complexity can affect frontline workers, especially when employees are sick. Using an employer app to report each missed shift while also filing a leave-of-absence claim with a third-party administrator such as Sedgwick can create confusion about which action is required for immediate protection from discipline. For workers, the stakes include loss of income, termination, and difficulty rehiring after illness. For stores, the situation raises questions about training and communication of absence policies and whether disciplinary systems appropriately account for employees who follow some but not all reporting steps while ill.

Other Walmart associates who shared similar experiences online described comparable confusion and recourse efforts, including appeals and meetings with store managers. The outcome of the associate’s meeting with supervisors will determine whether she is reinstated, and the case underscores a broader need for clearer guidance to avoid penalizing sick employees who are trying to comply with multiple reporting systems.