The U.S Supreme Court, which agreed last month to review a case that would have decided the issue, dismissed the lawsuit Monday after the parties reached a confidential settlement.

At issue was whether the ADA requires that an employer reassign a disabled employee to a vacant, equivalent position for which he or she is qualified or merely permit the employee to apply and compete with other applicants.

Appellate courts have ruled differently on the issue.

In this case, Pam Huber sustained a permanent injury to her right arm and hand while working at a Bentonville, Arkansas, Wal-Mart store as a dry grocery order filler. She sought reassignment to a router position as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

But Wal-Mart required her to apply and compete for the position with other applicants, and ultimately filled the job with a nondisabled applicant, explaining that Huber was not the most qualified candidate. Instead, it placed her in a lower-paying maintenance associate position at the time.

Huber then sued Wal-Mart in federal court claiming discrimination under the ADA and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993.

The court ruled in Huber’s favor. On appeal, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis overturned the decision, holding that employers are not required to offer positions to less qualified, disabled workers.

Huber’s attorney, C. Brian Meadors of Pryor, Robertson, Beasley, Smith & Karber in Fort Smith, Arkansas, declined to give any details of the confidential settlement, saying only that the litigation “has been resolved to our satisfaction and we have withdrawn our appeal.”

A spokeswoman for Wal-Mart says the case has been resolved “to the satisfaction of all parties” but declined to comment further given the settlement’s confidential nature.

Filed by Sally Roberts of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.