Free Trial / Sign Up Products / Prices / Samples About Us / Contact FAQs Home
Latest employment law cases  
Summaries and links to full text

LawMemo - First in Employment Law

Emailed directly to you
and online all the time
Latest Cases Key Word Search Law Firm Directory Arbitrator Directory Law School Directory Legal Resources / Memos
Employment Law Memo
Arbitration Law Memo
NLRB Law Memo
Employment Law Blog
Arbitration Law Blog
Employment Law 101
Articles
Supreme Court Cases
EEOC Info
NLRB Info

United States Supreme Court Employment Law Cases 

          All pending employment law cases - click here

Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (07-480) 
This case has been settled, and removed from the Court's docket.
ADA: Disabled employee's rights as to assignment to a different position 

Pam Huber had worked as an order-filler until she became disabled. She sought, as a reasonable accommodation, reassignment to a router position which was vacant and for which she was qualified. The employer did not automatically reassign her to the router position, but required her to apply and compete with other applicants. The employer filled the router position with a non-disabled person who was the most qualified applicant, and placed Huber in a less desirable janitorial position. 

Huber sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); the trail court granted summary judgment for Huber; the 8th Circuit reversed; the US Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the 8th Circuit judgment.

Huber's position is that the employer should have automatically reassigned her to the router position without requiring her to compete with other applicants. The employer's position is that it has a nondiscriminatory policy of hiring the most qualified applicant, and that giving the router position to the most qualified applicant does not violate the ADA. 

Case below: Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (8th Cir 05/30/2007)  . 
Official docket sheet 
Certiorari granted 12/072007.  
Justice Breyer will not participate in this case.

This case has been settled; it was removed from the Court's docket on January 14, 2008.

Question presented:  

Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12111 et seq. (ADA), requires employers to "mak[e] reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability." 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). The statute expressly lists "reassignment to a vacant position" as a "reasonable accommodation." Id. § 12111(9)(B). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued regulations implementing that definition, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(2)(ii), and it has interpreted those regulations to provide that "[t]he employee does not need to be the best qualified individual for the position in order to obtain it as a reassignment." The questions presented are: 

1. If a disability prevents an employee from performing the essential functions of his or her current position, does the ADA require: 

(a) that the employer reassign the employee to a vacant, equivalent position for which he or she is qualified, as the Tenth and District of Columbia Circuits have held; or 

(b) that the employer merely permit the employee to apply and compete with other applicants for the vacant, equivalent position for which he or she is qualified, as the Seventh and Eighth Circuits have held?  

Certiorari Documents: 

Briefs on the merits: 

Counsel:

 

EEOC | NLRB | Supreme CourtEmployment Law BlogArbitration Blog | Employment Law 101

 
Google
 
Web www.LawMemo.com 
This form will search the LawMemo web site. 
It does not include Advanced Search.