Abstract

On May 30, 2007, the Eighth Circuit decided Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., holding that the ADA does not require an employer to reassign a qualified disabled employee to another position when the employer can fill the vacant position with a more qualified employee. The U.S. Supreme Court initially granted certiorari in the Huber case, but the Court ultimately dismissed the writ after the parties settled the dispute. With the Huber decision, the Eighth Circuit joined a continuing circuit split: must an employer reassign a disabled employee to a vacant position when the employee is not the most qualified applicant? This Note will provide a new look at that circuit split. It will begin by tracing the development of disability law in the United States from colonial times to present day to demonstrate the new and transformative nature of the ADA's approach to disability law. It will then discuss the various ways of understanding disability, focusing, in particular, on the medical-rehabilitative model and the socio-political model. The Note will explain why a socio-political understanding of disability, thus far ignored by the courts, is an appropriate way to analyze the circuit split and dictates mandatory reassignment.