Jan. 14 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court canceled a scheduled employment-law clash involving Wal-Mart Stores Inc. after the nation's largest private-sector employer and a disabled worker reached a settlement.

The case would have tested the reach of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires employers to make ``reasonable accommodations'' so disabled workers can stay on the job.

The issue was whether an employer must offer a vacant position to a newly disabled worker when a more qualified person also wants the job. The settlement ends any live controversy that the Supreme Court would resolve.

A federal appeals court in the Wal-Mart case said the law guarantees disabled employees only the right to compete for vacant positions and doesn't require employers to turn away superior applicants. Appeals courts around the country are divided on the question.

The employee, Pam Huber, originally worked as an order filler at the Wal-Mart distribution center in Clarksville, Arkansas, earning $13 an hour. After she permanently injured her right arm and hand in an accident, she could no longer perform that job and sought a transfer to a router position, a desk job paying $12.50 an hour.

Wal-Mart instead gave that job to a more senior worker who had applied through the company's job-transfer program and had the highest possible evaluation score. The company assigned Huber to a janitorial position that paid $6.20 an hour.

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Sharon Weber said the case had been ``resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.'' Both she and Huber's attorney, C. Brian Meadors, declined to provide specifics, saying the settlement was confidential.

The case is Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, 07-480.

To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: January 14, 2008 12:59 EST