Supreme Court to Hear Wal-Mart Disability Case
TOOLBOX   Resize
 Save/Share +
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
Saturday, December 8, 2007; Page D03
An Arkansas woman who claims Wal-Mart Stores discriminated against her after she became disabled has successfully appealed her case to the Supreme Court.
The justices said yesterday they would rule on a lawsuit by Pam Huber, who remains a Wal-Mart employee. The case centers on how far employers must go under the Americans with Disabilities Act to accommodate disabled employees.
The dispute is over whether Wal-Mart was required to provide Huber with an equivalent position after her disability prevented her from performing her job, or whether the company simply had to allow her to compete for an equivalent job.
Huber's lawyers argued in court filings that the federal appeals courts have split on the issue and asked the justices to resolve the split.
Huber filled orders in a Wal-Mart distribution center in Clarksville, Ark., earning $13 an hour, when she was hurt on the job in April 2001. The company agreed she was disabled and no longer able to perform her job.
Huber applied for a job as a router, which paid $12.50, but the position was given to an employee Wal-Mart considered more qualified. Huber was offered a janitorial position that paid $6.20 an hour, her lawyers said in court papers.
Huber sued in June 2004, arguing that under ADA rules, she only had to be qualified for the equivalent position, not be the most qualified, and should have been reassigned to the router job.
Wal-Mart said in court papers that the job went to the most qualified candidate under a "standardized, legitimate, and non-discriminatory" process that is allowed under the ADA.
A federal court in Arkansas sided with Huber, but the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis ruled in favor of Wal-Mart.
The ADA "only requires Wal-Mart to allow Huber to compete for the job, but the statute does not require Wal-Mart to turn away a superior applicant," the appeals court said.
"We're confident that the 8th Circuit's decision represents the correct interpretation of the law and that the Supreme Court will affirm the ruling," Wal-Mart spokeswoman Sharon Weber said.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who owns Wal-Mart stock, recused himself from the decision.
The case will be argued before the court next year.
