The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 13 considered the case of a retired Florida firefighter with Parkinson’s disease who sued her former employer for discrimination over post-employment benefits.
Karyn Stanley had to accept disability retirement at the age of 47 after her Parkinson’s disease became so severe that she was unable to continue working as a firefighter for the city of Sanford, Florida.
Parkinson’s is a chronic, progressive disorder that affects the nervous system. Patients can experience tremors, walking and balance issues, difficulty speaking, and other symptoms.
Stanley, whose lawsuit against the city was put on hold by the lower courts, claimed that Sanford discriminates against disabled retirees by limiting when they become eligible for a health insurance subsidy.
She retired in 2018 after working for the city since 1999. When she began her employment, the city had a policy of paying for insurance until age 65 for employees who took retirement for a qualifying disability.
However, during Stanley’s employment, the city changed its policy in 2003, limiting coverage to 24 months for disabled retirees.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida held in December 2021 that former employees such as Stanley have no legal standing to sue under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because they’re no longer “qualified individuals” whom the law protects from discrimination.
Standing refers to the right of someone to sue in court. The parties must show a strong enough connection to the claim to justify their participation in a lawsuit.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling in October 2023.
Title VII protects employees and job applicants from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
The ADA states that employers aren’t allowed to “discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to … terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.”
However, the federal courts of appeals are divided on whether the anti-discrimination provisions of the ADA cover disabled former employees asking for post-employment benefits, according to the petition.
During the Jan. 13 oral argument, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney Frederick Liu if he was arguing that because there was evidence Stanley “had been discriminated against during the period of her employment … that should be enough to allow for her case to go forward.”
Liu replied, “That should be enough.”
“We think even if she couldn’t have pointed to that existence of discrimination while she was employed that she would still have a claim,” the DOJ lawyer said.
Stanley’s attorney, Deepak Gupta, said the ADA covered his client when her employer took away her future benefits.
Justice Samuel Alito said that in his experience, ADA cases “almost always concerned the question of reasonable accommodation,” which applies to current employees, not retirees.
He questioned “how the reasonable accommodation concept can be applied to retirement benefits.”
“What is the discrimination here?”Alito asked.
“How is a court supposed to determine whether this distinction between somebody who works 25 years and somebody who works a shorter period and retires based on disability is unlawful?”
The city’s attorney, Jessica Conner, said the anti-discrimination provisions of the ADA apply only to current employees.
“Title I of the ADA prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of disability only against an individual who can perform the job she holds or desires, present tense,” she said.
Conner said this means the Eleventh Circuit was correct when it found her Title I claim failed because she could not show that the city discriminated against her “while she could perform the essential functions of a job that she held or desired.”
“Everyone agrees” that an employer does not run afoul of Title I when it terminates an employee who is no longer capable of performing her job’s core functions, she said.
“The outcome should be no different here simply because retirees or post-employment benefits are involved,” she said.
Jackson asked Conner if the city denies that Stanley was disabled before her retirement.
Conner said the city does not.
“The only time that the alleged discrimination occurred was when she was an unqualified individual after she had taken her retirement,” the lawyer said.
Jackson asked, “So how do you ever challenge discrimination concerning a policy that relates to retirement and disability?”
Conner said the language in the ADA “expressly draws a line as to who it’s protecting. It says no employer shall discriminate against a person who can perform the job they hold or desire.”
Gupta said there are “at least two paths” to a legal victory for Stanley.
“The narrow path is to recognize that former employees may sue when they allege that they were discriminated against as qualified individuals while still employed,” he said.
The “broader” path, he said, would be for the court to find that “former employees may challenge post-employment discrimination.”
The city, on the other hand, is encouraging the Supreme Court to find that “ADA’s protections for these benefits mean the least precisely when they matter most.”
“Congress did not enact such a self-defeating scheme,” the lawyer said.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in Stanley v. City of Sanford by the end of June.
