United States Supreme Court to Decide Question Regarding Disabled Employee Reassignment
The U.S. Supreme Court will attempt to harmonize differing appellate court rulings by deciding whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requires an employer to give a disabled employee a preference in job reassignments.
In Huber v. Wal-Mart, Huber was employed by Wal-Mart in the position of dry grocery order filler. She was subsequently injured and was unable to perform the duties of her original position. Huber sought reassignment to the vacant position of router as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. Another employee, however, was selected for that position because he allegedly possessed better qualifications, being employed by Wal-Mart for six years longer than Huber and having a higher evaluation score. The parties stipulated that the position of router was equivalent to her former position and that Huber was qualified for the position. Huber was ultimately reassigned to a maintenance position that paid approximately half of what she made in her prior position.
Huber argued that Wal-Mart should have reassigned her to router as a reasonable accommodation. Wal-Mart argued that to automatically assign her to the router position, when she was not the most qualified applicant, would violate its nondiscrimination policy. The District Court granted Huber’s motion for summary judgment and Wal-Mart appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Currently, appellate circuits disagree regarding the interpretation of the ADA’s requirement for reasonable accommodation. The Tenth Circuit holds that if the reassignment language of the ADA merely requires the employer to consider the disabled employee on an equal basis with all other applicants, then such language would add nothing to the legal obligation not to discriminate. On the other hand, the Seventh Circuit holds that where an employer has a policy of hiring the most qualified applicant, reassignment is not mandatory where a superior applicant has applied for the position that is being sought by the disabled employee as an accommodation.
The Eighth Circuit in Huber agreed with the Seventh Circuit’s position, finding that the “ADA is not an affirmative action statute and does not require an employer to reassign a qualified disabled employee to a vacant position when such reassignment would violate a legitimate nondiscriminatory policy of the employer to hire the most qualified candidate.” Huber appealed the Court’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted review for this term.
The Supreme Court’s decision could have far-reaching effects regarding reassignment of disabled employees in the workplace. If you have specific questions regarding the application of the ADA to your business, please contact one of our offices directly.