Pam Huber worked at Walmart filling grocery orders and earning $13 an hour. While on the job, she suffered a permanent injury to her right arm and hand. Both she and Walmart agreed that she was disabled under the ADA. As a reasonable accommodation, she asked for a job as a router, which was then vacant. Although she was qualified for that job, she was not the most qualified. Walmart filled the job with the most qualified person. It offered Huber a position as a janitor at $6.20 per hour. Did Walmart violate the ADA

Question

Social Studies

Theresa

11 July, 17:32

Pam Huber worked at Walmart filling grocery orders and earning $13 an hour. While on the job, she suffered a permanent injury to her right arm and hand. Both she and Walmart agreed that she was disabled under the ADA. As a reasonable accommodation, she asked for a job as a router, which was then vacant. Although she was qualified for that job, she was not the most qualified. Walmart filled the job with the most qualified person. It offered Huber a position as a janitor at $6.20 per hour. Did Walmart violate the ADA

+4

Answers (2)

Know the Answer?

William Fleming · Answer 1

Answer: Walmart did not violate the ADA.

Explanation: The American's with disability act known as ADA was established in the year 1990. This law prevents discrimination against individual with disabilities in employment.

The act states in essence that an individual with disabilities should not be discriminated with other candidates. The job she requested for has a more qualified candidate and the more qualified candidate was employed based on merit and not discrmination. She was eventually given a job that is reasonable. It can be concluded that Pam Huber was treated just like every other candidates.

Cannon Keller · Answer 2

Walmart did not violate the ADA by giving Huber a position as a janitor, which seemed like a just or fair position that she was much more qualified for than the position of a router-a position she asked for, but was not given because she was not the most qualified for it. In summary, a more qualified person was given the position of a router, and Huber was treated as equally or fairly as other employed staff because she was given a more suitable position as a janitor; this is not in violation of the ADA.