AllFreePapers.com - All Free Papers and Essays for All Students
Search

Huber V. Walmart Stores, Inc.

Autor:   •  November 17, 2013  •  Case Study  •  643 Words (3 Pages)  •  2,054 Views

Page 1 of 3

This was a case brought to action by Pam Huber against her employer Wal-Mart. Ms. Huber sustained a permanent injury to her hand and arm while working as a dry grocery order filler for Wal-mart. As a result to her injuries she was unable perform her essential job functions in this position. Ms. Huber asked to be reassigned to a router position as a reasonable accommodation. As a result of this request she was required to compete with other applicants for the position, and after not being selected for this position. She was placed in a maintenance position where she was demoted and her wages where reduced from $13.00 to $6.20. Ms. Huber felt that she was discriminated against and filed a suit under the ADA to help with this issue.

Wal-Mart filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that it had a legitimate non-discriminatory policy of hiring the most qualified applicant for all job vacancies and therefore was not required to reassign Ms. Huber to the router position. Ms. Huber filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted Huber’s motion and Wal-Mart appealed. The issue before the court was whether “an employer has an obligation to reassign a qualified disabled employee to a vacant equivalent position when the employer has an already established policy to hire or promote the most qualified to the position” (Twomey, 2013, p. 566). The appeals court reversed and ruled in favor of Wal-Mart. The appeals court reasoned that automatic reassignment is not required and that the ADA is not an affirmative action statute. The employer had an established non-discriminatory hiring policy that required everyone to compete so Ms. Huber was required to compete. The appeals court held that an employer is not obligated to reassign a qualified disabled employee over a more highly qualified applicant for the position.

1. Pam Huber sustained a permanent injury while working for Wal-Mart and could no longer perform her order filler job. The parties agreed that she was qualified for the vacant router position, possessing the required skill, education, experience, and training. The

...

Download as:   txt (4 Kb)   pdf (73.6 Kb)   docx (11.1 Kb)  
Continue for 2 more pages »