Sharpe-Miller v. Walmart, Inc.
No. 24-2055. 7/13/2026. D.N.M. Judge Holmes. Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation—Civil Rights Act—New Mexico Civil Rights Act—Disparate Treatment—Retaliation—Hostile Work Environment—Constructive Discharge.
July 13, 2026
Sharpe-Miller is a gay man who began working for Walmart in 2017. Over the course of his employment, Sharpe-Miller worked in various departments and alleged that some of his coworkers made comments and gestures about his sexual orientation. Sharpe-Miller was promoted to a supervisory position but was demoted in 2019 to a non-supervisory position with a lower wage. Two weeks after the demotion, store managers told him he was under investigation for sexual harassment of minor twin brothers whom he had supervised, but he never heard anything further about the investigation. In April 2021, Sharpe-Miller was summoned for jury duty, so he noted his anticipated absence in Walmart’s attendance system and took the day off work. When he returned on his next regularly scheduled workday later that week, his supervisor told him that he had been terminated. Sharpe-Miller explained that he had properly reported his absence for jury duty and escalated his protest to a co-manager, Carrera, who reinstated him. On April 16, 2021, Sharpe-Miller submitted his two weeks’ notice indicating his intent to resign from Walmart, and he resigned on April 30. In 2022, Sharpe-Miller sued Walmart for discriminating against him because of his sexual orientation, alleging various claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA). He also brought disparate treatment claims based on his demotion and temporary firing, alleging they were motivated by anti-gay animus; a retaliation claim, alleging that Walmart supervisors took actions against him for opposing unlawful discrimination; a hostile work environment claim, contending that Walmart employees subjected him to such severe or pervasive anti-gay harassment that it effectively altered his terms or conditions of employment; and a constructive discharge claim, asserting that the alleged discrimination was so intolerable that he had no reasonable choice but to quit. The district court granted summary judgment to Walmart on all claims and dismissed the action with prejudice.
On appeal, Sharpe-Miller argued that the district court erred by granting summary judgment on his disparate treatment claim arising from his demotion. He contended that his demotion fell within an exception to the statutes of limitations because it was part of one continuing violation, other parts of which occurred within the applicable limitations period. Walmart maintained that the disparate treatment claim was time-barred. Title VII and the NMHRA require that claims be brought within 180 or 300 days of the offending action, depending on the circumstances. Sharpe-Miller was demoted sometime in 2019, so the federal and New Mexico statutes of limitations started to run for this discrete-act claim that day and expired 180 or 300 days thereafter, which was sometime in October 2020 at the latest. Sharpe-Miller brought this action against Walmart in 2022. Accordingly, his disparate treatment claim based on his demotion is time-barred.
Sharpe-Miller also challenged the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Walmart on his disparate treatment claim arising from his brief termination, contending that the district court should not have found that Walmart met its burden under step 2 of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), to establish a nondiscriminatory reason for his termination and that he presented evidence sufficient to satisfy step 3 of McDonnell Douglas. However, he waived this challenge by not addressing one of the grounds on which the district court disposed of this claim: whether his termination was an adverse employment action at all. Specifically, he failed to address the court’s reasoning that he was promptly reinstated and never worked without pay.
Sharpe-Miller further contended that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for Walmart on his retaliation claim. However, Sharpe-Miller did not identify evidence that he engaged in protected opposition to discrimination. By not showing that he engaged in a protected activity, he failed to establish one of the prima facie elements of a Title VII retaliation claim. The district court thus properly granted summary judgment on his retaliation claim.
Sharpe-Miller also maintained that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for Walmart on his hostile work environment claim, arguing that the court disregarded or discounted instances of sexual orientation harassment and incorrectly determined that knowledge of the harassment could not be imputed to Walmart. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Sharpe-Miller, he demonstrated enough evidence of anti-gay discrimination in his workplace to support a hostile work environment claim. And sufficient evidence exists that supervisors knew of enough harassment for a reasonable jury to find that Walmart knew or should have known of the hostile work environment. Here, the district court mistakenly excluded or discounted multiple relevant discriminatory acts and relied on an incomplete statement of the law in stating that a hostile work environment claim can only succeed if the plaintiff is subjected to a “steady barrage” of discrimination. Accordingly, the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Walmart on this claim.
Lastly, Sharpe-Miller challenged the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Walmart on his constructive discharge claim. A high standard is required to support a finding of constructive discharge. Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Sharpe-Miller and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, he did not show that he was subjected to intolerable conditions such that an objectively reasonable person in his position would believe he had no choice but to quit. A reasonable jury could not conclude that Sharpe-Miller was constructively discharged. Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment to Walmart on this claim.
The judgment as to all of the challenged claims, except for the hostile work environment claim, was affirmed. The judgment on the hostile work environment claim was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.