Nachack v. Walmart Inc.

Background

Ysabelle Bouachanh Nachack, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Walmart Inc. over an incident at a local Walmart store on November 15, 2022. She alleged assault, battery, slander, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and sought compensatory, special, and punitive damages.

Nachack had purchased a hair-coloring product online and went to the store to exchange it. Walmart’s customer service associate denied the exchange and told her to contact online customer service. Nachack then asked to speak with a manager. Another customer service associate came to the desk, and Nachack claimed that the employee accused her of stealing, took the bag from her, struggled with her over it, and caused her to fall. Walmart’s policy, as described by its witnesses, allowed online purchases to be returned for a refund or store credit but not exchanged in the store.

Trial and factual findings

The court held a bench trial on August 17 and 18, 2025. No video of the incident was available because Walmart generally retained surveillance footage for only 30 days unless a physical injury was reported. One former employee who allegedly witnessed the incident did not testify because she lived outside the court’s jurisdiction and could not be compelled to appear. Another employee testified that she could not recall the incident.

The court found Nachack’s testimony about the incident not credible except where corroborated by other evidence. It found that the evidence supported, at most, that a Walmart employee took Nachack’s bag at some point and later returned it. The court did not find credible evidence that Walmart employees accused Nachack of stealing, yelled or shouted at her, chased her from the store, engaged in a physical tugging contest, or caused her to fall.

The court also found that Nachack did not prove damages caused by the incident. Walmart’s physical-injury expert testified that Nachack’s lower-back condition was degenerative rather than caused by a specific incident. Walmart’s mental-health expert testified that Nachack’s anxiety, depression, and other emotional problems predated the Walmart incident and were not caused or worsened by it. Nachack presented claimed medical expenses, lost wages, and pain-and-suffering damages, but the court found that she did not adequately connect those amounts to the incident and did not prove them with reasonable certainty.

Legal conclusions

For assault, the court concluded that Nachack did not prove that she reasonably feared harmful or offensive contact, that she was harmed, or that Walmart’s conduct caused her harm. The taking of her bag, as supported by the evidence, did not establish assault.

For battery, the court concluded that Nachack did not prove an offensive or harmful touching or that the alleged conduct caused physical or mental harm. The court found that merely taking her bag did not satisfy the claim under the circumstances proven at trial.

For slander, which is oral defamation, the court concluded that Nachack did not prove that Walmart’s employee made the alleged statement accusing her of stealing. Without proof that the statement was made, she could not establish the required elements of the claim.

For intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court concluded that the conduct proven at trial was not extreme enough to meet the legal standard for outrageous conduct. It also concluded that Nachack did not prove that Walmart employees acted intentionally or recklessly to cause emotional distress or that their conduct caused her distress.

Disposition

At the close of the evidence, Walmart renewed its motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c) for judgment on partial findings. That rule permits a court conducting a bench trial to enter judgment when a party has been heard on an issue but has not shown a legally sufficient basis for relief. The court granted Walmart’s motion as to inadequate proof of damages and accordingly found in favor of Walmart on all claims.

The court additionally found in favor of Walmart on the independent grounds that Nachack had not proved the liability or causation elements of her claims. The opinion therefore ends with Walmart prevailing on all four claims.