The plaintiff claims to have diabetes and some form of cancer, so probably IS immunocompromised.I'm guessing the facts of the matter are probably fairly clear-cut. They probably are immune suppressed, and they probably weren't allowed into the store.
The questions are in what that means in terms of interpretting whether the practice is discriminatory. I'm going to guess that it won't be found to be discrimination. Both Walmart and the state have a clear interest in keeping more people safe. Just taking people's word for it defeats the purpose of the policy, but having highly qualified personnel do it would be too high a practical burden. Sorry, but in the overall health crisis, quick and dirty may be acceptable.
In all likelihood, the security guards have been advised that such people are to be considered admissible during C19 shopping hours- both afflictions are explicitly mentioned in all the similar policies I’ve seen here in Texas.
If those diseases were part of the policy- and the guards weren’t briefed- that’s an administrative failure and the retailer will probably lose.
If those diseases weren’t part of the policy, that’s something that could go either way, depending on how the court views the store’s standard vs state and federal guidelines.
If those diseases were part of the policy and the guards were briefed, but the plaintiff provided no form of proof if asked, that’s probably a loss for the plaintiff. The guards would qualify under the law as personnel with a “need to know” a person’s health info in order to implement the policy.