Job Applicants Who Answered ‘No’ to Lifting 30 Pounds Were Automatically Rejected by a Hospital Gift Shop Chain — It Paid $600,000 to Settle

Photo credit: AI-generated image created using ChatGPT. Illustrative only.

It wasn’t a dramatic interview question. It was a checkbox-style screening prompt: could you lift up to 30 pounds, and could you walk or stand for up to five hours? For some applicants with disabilities, answering “no” didn’t lead to a conversation about the actual job or possible accommodations. It reportedly led to an automatic rejection.

That’s the practice the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission targeted in a federal disability discrimination lawsuit against Lori’s Gifts, Inc., a nationwide chain of hospital gift shops. In an April 23, 2026 press release, the agency’s announcement said the company will pay $600,000 and change its hiring practices under a two-year consent decree.

A simple “no” that shut the door

The EEOC said Lori’s Gifts used preemployment screening questions for store positions that asked applicants if they could lift up to 30 pounds and if they could walk or stand for up to five hours. The agency alleged those requirements weren’t related to the job or necessary for it.

The bigger problem, the lawsuit claimed, was what happened next: if an applicant answered “no” to either question, they were automatically rejected. No individualized assessment. No chance to explain. No discussion about whether a reasonable accommodation could make the work possible.

From the agency’s perspective, that’s not a neutral filter—it’s a gate that can screen out people with disabilities before they ever get a fair shot.

What the EEOC says was illegal about the screening

The EEOC framed the case as a companywide pattern going back to at least 2018. The agency alleged Lori’s Gifts engaged in unlawful employment practices that included both screening criteria and preemployment inquiries that the ADA doesn’t allow in that form.

The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits employers from using qualification standards that screen out—or tend to screen out—individuals with disabilities. It also limits disability-related inquiries before a job offer and bars employers from refusing to hire qualified people because they assume accommodations would be needed.

In the press release, Debra Lawrence, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office, put it plainly: “Federal law prohibits employers from attempting to screen out or exclude applicants with disabilities,” adding that applicants with disabilities must be given an equal opportunity to seek employment.

How it escalated into a federal case

The case didn’t start in a courtroom. The EEOC said it first tried to resolve the dispute through its administrative conciliation process—the pre-litigation step meant to reach a settlement without filing suit.

When that didn’t resolve things, the agency filed EEOC v. Lori’s Gifts, Inc. (Case No. 2:23-cv-03175-EAS-CMV) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The press release identifies the Columbus, Ohio area as the location for the announcement, even as it describes Lori’s Gifts as a nationwide chain.

Whatever the behind-the-scenes negotiations looked like, the settlement terms show this wasn’t treated as a one-off complaint. The EEOC described the alleged practices as companywide and dating back years.

The price tag wasn’t just money

The $600,000 payment is the headline number, but the settlement also locks in changes to how Lori’s Gifts hires. The two-year consent decree enjoins the company from disability discrimination going forward, including making pre-offer inquiries about applicants’ physical capacities.

It also bars retaliation and interference—language that matters in hiring cases because applicants and employees can be reluctant to raise concerns if they think it could cost them future opportunities.

Then come the operational requirements: the company must train store associates, managers, and human resources personnel on the ADA and disability discrimination. It must submit periodic reports to the EEOC about applicants who seek accommodations. And it must set up a telephone and email hotline for employees and applicants to report ADA-related concerns, questions, or complaints.

Even the application experience has to change. The decree requires Lori’s Gifts to provide information on its job application webpage about how to report concerns of disability discrimination under the ADA, making it harder for the issue to stay hidden or get brushed aside.

What people usually latch onto in cases like this

The press release doesn’t include public comments, but cases built around “automatic rejection” screening tend to trigger the same practical questions people ask when they’ve been shut out of a job process: Was the requirement truly essential? Who decided it? And how many applicants never made it past the first click?

One detail that stands out is the alleged lack of connection between the screening questions and the actual job needs. When a company treats a physical ability standard as universal—without showing it’s job-related and necessary—it can become a blunt instrument. That’s especially true in retail-adjacent settings like hospital gift shops, where duties may vary widely by location, staffing, and layout.

People also tend to focus on documentation. A screening question inside an online application creates a clean record: what was asked, what the applicant answered, and what happened next. That kind of paper trail can turn a vague suspicion into something an agency can investigate and litigate.

A reminder that “standard” hiring filters can become legal landmines

Lori’s Gifts didn’t admit wrongdoing in the EEOC’s announcement, but it agreed to pay a significant settlement and operate under a court-enforced decree that reshapes its hiring process. That’s the practical outcome: money changes hands, and the screening system has to change.

For applicants, the story is a window into how quickly an online form can decide someone’s future—sometimes without anyone ever reading a résumé. For employers, it’s a warning that “one-size-fits-all” physical requirements, especially before an offer, can trigger exactly the kind of scrutiny that ends with federal court and a long list of mandated fixes.

The next two years will be about compliance: training, reporting, and whether applicants who need accommodations actually get a chance to compete for these jobs instead of being filtered out by a single automatic “no.”