Huber vs Walmart Docket# 07-480
Pam Huber of Arkansas, while an associate at a local Wal Mart, was injured to the point of being disabled. Not being able to fulfil the requirements of the department she was assigned to, she requested a transfer to a department of her choice. The store management refused her request, on the basis of someone else was better qualified, and placed her in another, lower paid, position.
Ms. Huber filed suit citing violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit ruled out of her favor and in 1999, the case went to the 10th US Court of Appeals. On Ms. Huber's appeal, the court ruled in her favor and an appeal was requested by Wal Mart.
The next appeal was heard by the 7th US Court of Appeals in 2000. That court ruled in favor of Walmart, that the ADA was not violated. Ms. Huber filed with the US Supreme Court.
This month, the US Supreme Court dismissed the case, citing court rule 46.
--Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 Rev. 2008--
Title 42 Chapter 126 Subchapter 1 Section 9 Subsection B (Reasonable Accomodation) states "job restructuring, part time or modified work schedules, reassignment to vacant position......"
The section makes no reference to desired position, only that the person must be reassigned.
--US Supreme Court Rule 46--
This rule states that a dismissal may occur when both parties reach an agreement outside of the ruling of the court.
Comments