The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Monday regarding whether retirees can sue former employers for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This pivotal case could reshape the landscape of disability discrimination lawsuits involving retirement benefits, an issue that has caused significant division in lower courts.
At the heart of the case is Karyn Stanley, a former firefighter from Sanford, Florida, who retired after being diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. Stanley claims that the city discriminated against her by ending her health insurance subsidy earlier than other retirees who did not have disabilities.
Sanford offers health insurance subsidies for employees who retire after 25 years of service, covering costs until they turn 65. The city had previously extended this benefit to disabled retirees regardless of their service length. However, the policy changed while Stanley was still employed, limiting benefits for disabled retirees to just 24 months after leaving the workforce.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Stanley could not sue under the ADA because she had not been discriminated against during her employment with the city. The ADA protects qualified workers with disabilities from discrimination during their employment, but it does not clearly address post-retirement discrimination.
During Monday’s proceedings, it remained unclear how the justices would rule. Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether the ADA’s anti-discrimination protections should apply to retirees, pointing out that ADA cases typically focus on workplace accommodations, which would not apply to someone who has retired.
“What is the discrimination here?” Alito asked Stanley’s attorney, Deepak Gupta. “How is a court supposed to determine whether this distinction between someone who works 25 years and someone who retires based on disability is unlawful?”
Gupta countered, arguing that Stanley would have completed her 25 years of service if not for her disability, and was unfairly treated compared to retirees who did not have disabilities.
Meanwhile, the city’s legal team defended its policy, claiming that it was necessary to control costs for employee benefits. Jessica Conner, representing Sanford, argued that Stanley was not qualified for the benefits because she was unable to perform the essential functions of her job due to her disability.
However, the court’s liberal justices seemed to lean in Stanley’s favor. Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that Stanley was qualified for her job when the city implemented the policy, and that her claim could be valid because the alleged discrimination began when she received her diagnosis, two years before she retired.
Read more: