Cortez V. Walmart Stores

Cortez v. Wal-Mart Stores

Robert Cortez (plaintiff) is suing Sam’s Club in violation for Age Discrimination in Employment Act, failing to promote him to general manager. The jury found that Sam’s Club had violated the Age Discrimination Employment Act and awarded damages to Cortez.

Sam’s Club argues that the reason why Cortez wasn’t promoted was because of an active performance “coaching” in his file, in accordance with their “Coaching for Improvement” policy. This occurs when an employee behavior (job performance or misconduct) fails to meet the Company’s expectations. Cortez had received a written coaching, but promotion eligibility is not mentioned in the Coaching for Improvement section. The active performance “coaching” file stays open for 12 months. The court felt there were undoubtedly legitimate business reasons for the no-coaching aspect of Sam Club’s promotion policy. Unlike truly objective criteria the no-coaching qualification can be used as a tool for unlawful discrimination. Therefore, the court felt that Cortez’s admission that he received a coaching within one year of the promotions at issue was not fatal to his prima facie case.

Cortez worked for the company since April 28, 1986 to April 29, 2003; and has more than 10 years of assistant managerial experience. During his time at Sam’s Club he received accolades for his leadership in opening a new store in Albuquerque during the same timeframe he was seeking a promotion. While in Puerto Rico for three years he was the co-general manager and shared the responsibility with the general manger for the entire store operations. During this attentive he was receiving above-average performance rating. This evidence proved Cortez was discriminated against and he was well qualified to be a general manager.

Employers should address performance problems by first verbally communicating the issue with the employer