Case study of Huber v Walmart Stores Inc

¶ … tenth circuit court ruled that Huber should have been reassigned under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The reassignment should have been automatic, and Huber should not have been forced to compete for the open position. This is the most persuasive opinion. The employee did not choose to become disabled. Had she been given a choice, she would have remained uninjured and kept performing her usual work duties. As such, she should be given the advantage of being assigned to a new position automatically if a comparable one was available. In this case, the router position was available, and Huber was qualified. When the employee is thrust into circumstances beyond their control, such as acquiring a disability, they deserve compassion from their employer.

Disabilities are devastating to the individuals who have them, and employers should be willing to make reasonable accommodations for such employees. That is why the ADA was passed. The ADA's guidelines specifically mention reassignment to a vacant position. They may only be guidelines, but they exit for a reason. Requiring an employee with a disability to compete for an open position seems like discrimination. The ADA was created to avoid discrimination, and as such, their guidelines should be followed. The seventh circuit court stated that the reassignment to a vacant position should not be automatic if there is a more qualified candidate. This is the least persuasive argument. The disabled employee deserves to be given a comparable position regardless of who else is qualified for it. Being more or less qualified for a job position is subjective. Scores on a test or results of an interview do not always indicate the best candidate for a position. Some employees simply do not test well, and others are shy and do not interview well. The employee with the disability should be given the opportunity to perform the job duties.

The ruling in the Huber case was not a clear win for Wal Mart. The trial court first ruled in favor of Huber. Later, on appeal, the result was overturned. However, the case did not make it to the Supreme Court when the parties settled out of court. As such, Wal Mart had a win and a loss in different courts. After seeing the results of this case, employers should be aware of the ADA and their guidelines. A company with a policy that says the best candidate is always hired should re-word that policy. A company does not want to get a reputation for abusing or discriminating against individuals with disabilities. In this country, such individuals are considered capable of doing the same things as those without disabilities. The United States has adopted a caring, understanding, accommodating attitude towards these individuals. Companies within this country should mirror the values of the country. The policy should state that under most circumstances, the most qualified candidate will be chosen for a vacant position. However, a clause explaining the guidelines of the ADA should be included. The company should make it very clear where they stand when it comes to reassignment. Is it automatic if the positions are comparable and the employee is qualified, or does the employee have to compete with other, qualified applicants? Posting the guidelines clearly helps avoid misunderstandings in the future.