## Facts

- Pam Huber worked for Wal-Mart as a dry grocery order filler at a distribution center in Clarksville, Arkansas.
- Huber suffered a permanent injury to her right arm and hand and could no longer perform the essential functions of the order-filler position.
- The parties stipulated that Huber had a disability within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- Huber requested reassignment as a reasonable accommodation to a vacant, equivalent router position at the same distribution center.
- The parties stipulated the router position was vacant and equivalent and that Huber was qualified to perform it.
- Wal-Mart had an established, disability-neutral policy of filling vacancies with the most qualified applicant and required Huber to apply and compete for the router job.
- Wal-Mart selected a non-disabled applicant who was stipulated to be the most qualified and denied Huber the router position.
- Wal-Mart later placed Huber in a lower-paid maintenance associate position at another facility.
- Huber sued under the ADA and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, alleging unlawful discrimination and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

## Issues

1. Whether the ADA requires an employer to reassign a qualified disabled employee to a vacant, equivalent position as a reasonable accommodation when doing so would override a neutral policy of selecting the most qualified applicant.
2. Whether permitting the disabled employee to compete for the vacancy, without preferential placement, satisfies the ADA’s reassignment accommodation obligation.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit reversed summary judgment for Huber and entered judgment for Wal-Mart.
- The court held the ADA does not require reassignment that displaces an employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory “most qualified applicant” policy.
- Wal-Mart satisfied the ADA by allowing Huber to compete for the router position and was not required to place her in the job ahead of a more qualified applicant.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari but dismissed the case after the parties settled, leaving the Eighth Circuit’s decision in place within that circuit.

## Legal Principles

- “Reassignment to a vacant position” can be a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, but it does not necessarily mean automatic placement.
- The ADA generally does not require an employer to abandon legitimate, disability-neutral employment policies as an accommodation.
- Requiring placement of a minimally qualified disabled employee over a more qualified candidate is not mandated where it would convert reasonable accommodation into preferential treatment.
- An employer complies with the ADA’s reassignment duty, as construed here, by providing equal access to compete for vacancies without disability-based exclusion.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit held that the ADA’s reasonable-accommodation provision does not compel an employer to reassign a qualified disabled employee to a vacant, equivalent job when reassignment would conflict with a neutral policy of selecting the most qualified applicant; allowing the employee to compete for the position is sufficient.


Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 486 F.3d 480 (8th Cir. 2007)