Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007)

By Gia Scotti

Overview

In Huber v. Wal-Mart, a disabled employee, Pamela Huber, sued Wal-Mart under the Americans with Disabilities Act after the Defendant denied her request to get reassigned to a vacant router position. Wal-Mart complied with its policy, which required her to compete for the job with other candidates and ultimately, she was not assigned the position. Huber argued that Wal-Mart should have reasonably accommodated her by automatically assigning her to the router position. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of Wal-Mart and held that the ADA does not invoke favoritism, but aims to prevent discriminatory practices. As long as an employer follows a legitimate and fair policy, they are not required to give preference to a disabled employee over a more qualified candidate. 

Summary 

Pam Huber worked for Wal-Mart as a dry grocery order filler. She sustained a permanent injury to her right arm and hand, and consequently, could not perform her essential duties. Her injury qualified as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Due to this, Huber requested a router position to accommodate her needs, but Wal-Mart required her to compete with other applicants for the position pursuant to its hiring policy. Ultimately, the position was given to a non-disabled applicant who was deemed more qualified, and Huber was placed at another facility in a maintenance associate position. Huber sued Wal-Mart under the ADA arguing that she should have been assigned to the router position as a reasonable accommodation. The district court ruled in her favor, granting her motion for summary judgment, which Wal-Mart appealed. 

In order to have a reasonable accommodation claim under the ADA, the plaintiff is required to show three elements: 

(1) has a disability within the meaning of the ADA 

(2) is a qualified individual; and 

(3) suffered an adverse employment action as a result of the disability

Under element (2), the employee must:

1. possess the requisite skill, education, experience, and training for her position; and 

2. be able to perform the essential job functions, with or without a reasonable accommodation 

The only dispute in this case is whether the ADA required Wal-Mart to automatically reassign Huber to the router position, even though another individual was more qualified. Huber argued that the ADA required reassignment to a vacant position as a reasonable accommodation, and since the job was vacant, Wal-Mart should have given it to her without her having to compete with other candidates. Alternatively, Wal-Mart argued the opposite, adhering to its fair policy of hiring the most qualified applicant regardless if he/she is disabled. 

Ultimately, the court looked at past precedent such as EEOC v. Humiston-Keeling to guide their decision. In this case, it was held that the ADA does not require an employer to reassign a qualified disabled employee to a position if there is a more qualified applicant and the employer has a policy of hiring the most qualified candidate. Although the ADA protects disabled workers from discrimination, it does not allow special preference, and by forcing Wal-Mart to pick a disabled worker over a more qualified individual would violate that principle. A company’s policy of hiring the most qualified worker for a position is valid. Additionally, the court said Wal-Mart did reasonably accommodate Huber by placing her in a maintenance job. The court reversed the earlier decision and ruled in favor of the defendant.

Impact 

The decision in Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores clarified that employers do not have to automatically reassign a qualified disabled employee to a vacant position, if another individual is more qualified. The ADA is designed to prevent discrimination and not to promote favoritism. Furthermore, the decision may lead to a number of questions in regards to the scope of a reasonable accommodation and how to balance accommodating disabled employees while also adhering to fair hiring practices. 

Court Documents

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

Citations

Westlaw Case Summary: Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Westlaw, https://westlaw.com. Accessed September 8, 2025. 

EEOC V. Humiston-Keeling, Inc., 227 F.3d 1024 (7th Cir. 2000)