That’s because both sides in Pam Huber’s fight against retail giant Wal-Mart agreed to a confidential settlement and voluntarily withdrew the case before the high court, according to court records .
At issue in the case before the justices was whether the ADA requires an employer reassign a disabled employee to a vacant, equivalent job for which the disabled applicant is qualified or only mandates the employer allow that worker to compete with other applicants.
Huber sued Wal-Mart after she was turned down for a job reassignment when she suffered an injury to her right arm and hand, claiming that the higher paying job she sought represented the “reasonable accommodation” called for in the ADA.Wal-Mart ultimately filled the job with a nondisabled applicant, explaining that Huber was not the most qualified candidate.
Huber won in the lower court, but a federal appellate court overturned that decision, saying that the ADA does not force employers to offer positions to less qualified, disabled workers (See Supreme Court to Review Wal-Mart ADA Hiring Case ).
Neither side would discuss the settlement details, according to a Business Insurance news report.