Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
486 F.3d 480 (2007)
Facts
Huber (plaintiff) worked as a grocery-order filler for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) (defendant). While working as an order filler, Huber permanently injured her arm and hand, and she could no longer perform the essential tasks of that job position. Huber asked Wal-Mart to grant her a reasonable accommodation by reassigning her to a vacant router position. Huber was qualified for the router job. Wal-Mart maintained a policy of hiring the most qualified job applicant for all positions. As a result, Wal-Mart declined to grant Huber an automatic transfer and required that she compete with other applicants for the router position. Wal-Mart hired a more qualified applicant. Wal-Mart eventually assigned Huber to a different, lower-paying position in another facility. Huber sued Wal-Mart under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., arguing that the statute required Wal-Mart to grant her automatic preference over other qualified applicants as a reasonable accommodation of her disability. The district court granted summary judgment in Huber’s favor, and Wal-Mart appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Riley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 708,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
