Under the Americans With Disabilities Act, it is well settled that “reassignment” to an open and available position must be considered as a possible “reasonable accommodation.” The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals significantly narrowed the scope of an employer’s “reassignment” obligation, by holding that the ADA requires only that an employer “consider” an accommodated employee for a position, but may bypass such an employee in favor of a more qualified candidate, while still fulfilling its obligations under the act.

In Huber v. Wal-Mart, Pam Huber worked as an order-filler when she suffered a permanent injury to her right arm and shoulder. The parties stipulated that Huber was disabled and that she could no longer perform the essential functions of her position.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]