Supreme Court Rules Against Retiree in Disability Bias Case

Retirees lack the basis to sue their former employers under the Americans with Disabilities Act for unlawful denial of post-employment benefits after leaving their jobs, the US Supreme Court ruled.

The high court upheld a US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit order that Karyn Stanley lacked standing to sue the City of Sanford, Fla., because the ADA only applies to qualified disabled workers who currently hold or seek a job. The majority said the ADA does not protect retirees who do not hold or seek a job at the time of the alleged discrimination.

The ruling addresses a conflict among six circuit courts on whether the ADA permits a disabled former employee to challenge employers’ decisions concerning post-employment distribution of fringe benefits earned during their work tenure.

Disability rights advocates have warned that a decision against Stanley risks jeopardizing the health care of disabled workers.

Stanley was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, which forced her to take disability retirement at age 47 in 2018, almost two decades after she joined the fire department as a city firefighter.

When Stanley first joined the fire department, the policy provided that employees retiring for qualifying disability reasons, such as Parkinson’s disease, would receive free health insurance until they turned 65. However, the benefits plan was changed in 2003, according to court documents. Under the agency’s new plan, disability retirees like Stanley are only entitled to the health insurance subsidy for 24 months after retirement.

Stanley was set to become responsible for her own health insurance premiums starting in December 2020. She sued in April 2020 to obtain her entitlement to the long-term healthcare subsidy. The city maintained that former employees like her lack standing to sue..."