Enforcing the ADA: How the Eighth Circuit Has Interpreted Undue Hardship to Employers When Examining Mandatory Reassignment as a Reasonable Accommodation Under the ADA—Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Authors

Matthew Zabek, University of Nebraska College of Law

Abstract

In Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Eighth Circuit joined a circuit split regarding whether it is mandatory under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 for an employer to accommodate a disabled employee by reassigning them to a vacant position, even if they are not the most qualified individual available to fill that position. The Eighth Circuit asserts that the ADA is an anti-discrimination statute, and therefore should not impose automatic employment preferences like mandatory reassignment. Courts on the opposite side of the split have held that the ADA requires mandatory reassignment because if it did not, the reassignment provision would lack meaning and enforceability. While Huber continues to embody the stance of the Eighth Circuit, other courts have continued to uphold mandatory reassignment under the ADA with legal analysis and argument that was not considered by the Eighth Circuit. This Note provides background and analysis of the ADA and the circuit split regarding mandatory reassignment and provides an argument that the Eighth Circuit should reevaluate its position opposing mandatory reassignment as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

Recommended Citation

Matthew Zabek, Enforcing the ADA: How the Eighth Circuit Has Interpreted Undue Hardship to Employers When Examining Mandatory Reassignment as a Reasonable Accommodation Under the ADA—Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 102 Neb. L. Rev. 687 (2023)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol102/iss3/7