[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-261290-105":53,"doc-detail-261290-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":120,"head_meta":122,"extra_data":124,"updated_unix":126},105,"en","equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-walmart-inc-memorandum-and-order","Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Walmart Inc. - Memorandum and Order","","Memorandum and Order in an EEOC lawsuit against Walmart Inc. addresses motions for summary judgment and an evidentiary motion to exclude the EEOC’s expert witness. The court applies the Federal Rule of Evidence 702 gatekeeping standard for expert admissibility, requiring qualification, reliability, and relevance. For summary judgment under Rule 56, the order explains “no genuine dispute” on material facts, identifies relevant record sources, and notes that conclusory allegations cannot create triable issues.",{"@graph":63,"@context":119},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-walmart-inc-memorandum-and-order/261290/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-walmart-inc-memorandum-and-order/261290.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Violet","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-25","2026-09-14",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",13,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105,111,115],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"What standards govern the court’s handling of the motion to exclude the expert witness?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702, requiring the expert to be qualified and the testimony to be reliable and relevant. Reliability depends on sufficient data and sound methods, and relevance requires help to the trier of fact on a fact in issue.","Answer",{"name":112,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":113},"When is summary judgment appropriate in this case?",{"text":114,"@type":110},"Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court treats a fact as material if it is necessary to resolve the claim, and disputes are genuine if a reasonable jury could decide in either party’s favor.",{"name":116,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":117},"What are the core allegations about the employees’ working conditions at Walmart?",{"text":118,"@type":110},"The lawsuit centers on two former Walmart employees who allege Walmart failed to provide reasonable accommodations and refused effective written communication. Both are deaf and use American Sign Language and written English, and they require interpreters for understanding complex or critical information.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":121,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":123,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":125,"site_id":56},261290,1790179869,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":128},{"doc_id":125,"user_id":129,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":136,"language":137,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":138,"faqs":139,"seo_title":140,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":141,"read_time":142},4398048950312,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/400002538284de19e3c?_k=1778320343897328908","In the United States District Court for the District of Kansas  \nCase No. 23-cv-02395-TC  \nEQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,  \nPlaintiff  \nv.  \nWALMART INC.,  \nDefendant  \nMEMORANDUM AND ORDER  \nThe Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Walmart Inc., alleging Walmart discriminated against two deaf employees in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended (ADAAA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Doc. 1. Walmart moved for summary judgment, Doc. 95, and to exclude the EEOC’s expert witness, Doc. 93. And the EEOC moved for partial summary judgment on one of Walmart’s affirmative defenses. Doc. 92. For the following reasons, Walmart’s motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part, and all other pending motions are denied.  \nI  \nA  \nEach type of motion, one seeking to exclude expert testimony and the others seeking summary judgment, has a different standard that governs its resolution. The following describes each applicable standard.  \n1. The admissibility of expert testimony is guided by Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Roe v. FCA US LLC, 42 F.4th 1175, 1180 (10th Cir. 2022) (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993)) . To fulfill its gatekeeping role, a trial court must ensure that the  \nexpert is qualified and that his or her testimony is both reliable and [relevant.](relevant. Id. at)[ Id.](relevant. Id. at)[ at](relevant. Id. at) 1180–81.“Rule 702 requires an expert witness to be qualified by ‘knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.’” Tudor v. Southeastern Okla. State Univ., 13 F.4th 1019, 1029 (10th Cir. 2021)(quoting Fed R. Evid. 702) . Testimony is reliable if “it is based on sufficient data, sound methods, and the facts of the case.” Roe, 42 F.4that 1181 (citing Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999)) . It is relevant if it helps the trier of fact “to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Fed. R. Evid. 702(a); Sanderson v. Wyoming Highway Patrol, 976 F.3d 1164, 1172 (10th Cir. 2020) .  \n2. Summary judgment is proper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the moving party demonstrates “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) . A fact is “material”when it is necessary to resolve a claim. Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 670 (10th Cir. 1998) . And disputes over material facts are“genuine” if the competing evidence would permit a reasonable jury to decide the issue in either party’s favor. Id. Disputes—even hotly contested ones—over facts that are not essential to the claims are irrelevant. Brown v. Perez, 835 F.3d 1223, 1233 (10th Cir. 2016) . Indeed, belaboring such disputes undermines the efficiency that Rule 56 seeks to promote. Adler, 144 F.3d at 670.  \nAt the summary judgment stage, material facts “must be identified by reference to affidavits, deposition transcripts, or specific exhibits incorporated therein.” Adler, 144 F.3d at 671; see also D. Kan. R.  \n56.1(a)–(c) . To determine whether a genuine dispute exists, the court views all evidence, and draws all reasonable inferences, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Allen v. Muskogee, Okla., 119 F.3d 837, 839–40 (10th Cir. 1997). That said, the nonmoving party cannot create a genuine factual dispute by making allegations that are purely conclusory, Adler, 144 F.3d at 671–72, 674, or unsupported by the record. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378–81 (2007) .  \nThe moving party bears the initial burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Savant Homes, Inc. v. Collins, 809 F.3d 1133, 1137 (10th Cir. 2016) . Once the moving party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to demonstrate that genuine issues as to those dispositive matters remain for trial. Celotex, [477 U.S","cbCaikyjnWDRwqll","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaikyjnWDRwqll","pdf",235731,29,"English","# Memorandum and Order\n## Expert testimony standard (Fed. R. Evid. 702)\n## Summary judgment standard (Fed. R. Civ. P. 56)\n## Case background and accommodation allegations","[{\"question\":\"What standards govern the court’s handling of the motion to exclude the expert witness?\",\"answer\":\"The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702, requiring the expert to be qualified and the testimony to be reliable and relevant. Reliability depends on sufficient data and sound methods, and relevance requires help to the trier of fact on a fact in issue.\"},{\"question\":\"When is summary judgment appropriate in this case?\",\"answer\":\"Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court treats a fact as material if it is necessary to resolve the claim, and disputes are genuine if a reasonable jury could decide in either party’s favor.\"},{\"question\":\"What are the core allegations about the employees’ working conditions at Walmart?\",\"answer\":\"The lawsuit centers on two former Walmart employees who allege Walmart failed to provide reasonable accommodations and refused effective written communication. Both are deaf and use American Sign Language and written English, and they require interpreters for understanding complex or critical information.\"}]","Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Walmart Inc. - Memorandum and Order | PDF",1789351222,10]