Cashier Asked for a Stool After Cancer Treatment Left Permanent Nerve Damage — Her Store Stopped Scheduling Her Entirely and Later Paid $75,000

Photo credit: AI-generated image created using ChatGPT.

It started with a pretty basic request: a cashier, newly hired at a Kroger in Atlanta’s Edgewood retail district, asked to sit on a stool or chair during her shifts. She wasn’t asking for special treatment. She said she needed it because breast cancer treatment had left her with permanent nerve damage in her lower extremities, and she backed it up with medical documentation.

What happened next, though, didn’t look like a normal back-and-forth over workplace accommodations. In a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency said the store stopped scheduling her entirely after she asked to sit, then ignored her repeated calls. Kroger ultimately agreed to pay $75,000 and change some internal practices to settle the case, as described in the EEOC’s press release.

A routine accommodation request turned into silence

According to the EEOC, the employee was a breast cancer survivor whose treatment caused lasting nerve damage in her legs. She was hired as a cashier, a job that typically involves long stretches on your feet, and “shortly thereafter” asked for a stool or chair so she could work while seated.

The agency says she provided medical documentation to support the request. That part matters, because it shows she wasn’t just casually asking to bend a rule—she was telling the store she had a disability-related need and could document it.

Then, instead of scheduling adjustments or a discussion about what could work, the EEOC alleges the store stopped putting her on the schedule. Not reduced hours. Not a different position. Just no shifts at all.

No shifts, no answers, and a complaint that didn’t fix it

The EEOC’s lawsuit describes the next phase as the kind of workplace limbo that’s hard to navigate: the employee called repeatedly, and the store allegedly ignored her. When you’re hourly and your name disappears from the schedule, the impact is immediate—no work means no pay.

Eventually, she filed an internal complaint. That would normally be a moment where a company tries to reset the communication and document what’s happening, especially with a disability accommodation request in the mix.

But the EEOC says months went by and she still wasn’t scheduled. The complaint didn’t bring her back onto the roster, and the silence continued.

After the EEOC charge, Kroger allegedly shut the door completely

In July 2023, after “several more months with no scheduled shifts,” the employee informed Kroger she had filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. The agency says Kroger’s response wasn’t to reach out, set up a meeting, or clarify her employment status.

Instead, the EEOC alleges Kroger told her that any further contact should be handled between her attorney and Kroger’s legal department. After that, the company did not attempt to contact her or schedule her to work.

The case is framed as both disability discrimination and retaliation: the employee asked for a reasonable accommodation, and then—after she complained internally and later went to the EEOC—she allegedly got frozen out rather than engaged with.

The ADA angle: you can’t just ghost someone who asks for help

The EEOC tied the allegations directly to the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits disability discrimination and retaliation. The ADA also requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities, unless doing so would pose an undue hardship.

In the press release, Marcus G. Keegan, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District, put it bluntly: “When an employee requests reasonable accommodations for their disability or files a complaint of discrimination, their employer cannot simply ignore them.”

The agency said it filed suit in federal court—EEOC v. The Kroger Co., Case No. 1:25-cv-00272, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia—after trying to resolve the matter through its administrative conciliation process first.

Darrell E. Graham, director of the EEOC’s Atlanta District, also emphasized the basics: “Employers cannot shirk their legal obligations under the ADA.”

The settlement: $75,000 and a two-year compliance blueprint

The case ended in a two-year consent decree, which is essentially a settlement with court-enforceable terms. Kroger agreed to provide $75,000 to the former cashier, the EEOC said.

But the money wasn’t the only piece. The decree also 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.

There’s also a visibility component: Kroger must post a notice in the workplace about the settlement and employees’ right to be free from workplace discrimination. And for oversight, the company must provide periodic reports to the EEOC about disability accommodation requests and how those requests were handled.

In other words, the settlement wasn’t just about one cashier’s schedule disappearing. It’s structured to prevent the same playbook—ignore, delay, cut off contact—from becoming the default response to accommodation requests.

What people tend to focus on in cases like this

The press release doesn’t include public comments, but the pattern in disability-accommodation disputes is familiar: people zero in on documentation, timelines, and whether the employer actually engaged with the request. Here, the EEOC highlighted that the employee provided medical support for the stool or chair request, then allegedly got removed from the schedule.

Another focus point is the communication trail. The agency’s version includes repeated calls that went unanswered, an internal complaint that didn’t change anything, and then a final boundary line—only talk to our lawyers—after she said she filed an EEOC charge. Those are the kinds of details that tend to shape how a workplace story is understood, because they show whether anyone tried to solve the problem or whether it was handled by avoidance.

Kroger’s settlement also signals what the government cared about fixing: training for the people who handle requests, clearer complaint procedures, and ongoing reporting. That’s a pretty direct response to allegations that the request wasn’t handled at all.

For the former cashier, the case ends with compensation and a formal agreement that changes how the company is supposed to respond next time. For everyone else still working under managers who control the schedule, the message is simpler: if a worker asks for a disability-related accommodation or complains about discrimination, “stop scheduling them” isn’t a lawful workaround—it’s the kind of move that can bring the EEOC to your door.