Also, the purpose of ADA is to ensure that disabled employees do not lose out on opportunities due to their disability. Disabled employees are to be treated at par with other employees of the organization and in no way be discriminated due to the disability (Moy, 2000). Therefore, ADA is not to be used to create an unfair advantage for an employee with disability. In the current context, Huber’s argument is creating an unfair advantage and violating the non-discrimination policy of Wal-Mart. If Huber is directly reassigned to the router position, then it would be unfair to other employees in the organization who are better suited for the job.
Therefore, Wal-Mart was not required to directly reassign Huber to the router position but was required to give an opportunity to compete equally with other participants. Hence, Wal-Mart adopted objective criteria approach to fill in the position. All employees were given an equal opportunity as per their non-discrimination policy. As there was a more qualified employee who better suit the job than Huber, Huber was reassigned elsewhere. This action would fall under reasonable accommodation and in no way does injustice to Huber.
Yes, this case represents a clear win for the employer. It is clearly established that ADA does not demand an employer to reassign an employee just on the basis of disability. It only demands an employer to treat an employee with disability equally and at par with other employees. It demands the employer to ensure that the employee with disability continues working for the employer in the best suited position. Therefore, it is a clear win for the employer in this case.
An employer must ensure that under all circumstances, an employee with disability must be given reasonable accommodation and should be treated at par with other employees.