In a recent Supreme Court case, Stanley v. City of Sanford, the Court considered whether a retiree could be considered a “Qualified Individual” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A ”Qualified Individual” is someone who can perform the essential functions of a job they hold or desire, with or without reasonable accommodation. The Court found that retirees do not count as “qualified disabled workers” under the ADA unless they hold or seek a job at the time of the alleged discrimination.

Stanley v. City of Sanford – Background

A retired firefighter, Karyn Stanley, of Sanford, Florida, was disabled with Parkinson’ disease and was forced into early retirement in 2018. Under the pre-existing department policy, employees who retired for qualifying disability reasons, such as Parkinson’s, would receive free health insurance until they turned 65. However, the benefits plan, which was changed in 2003, stated that she was only entitled to 24 months of health insurance coverage. With this new change, Stanley would be responsible for her own health insurance premiums starting December 2020. Had she been able to serve the entire 25 years she intended to work, she would have been covered until age 65.

Stanley sued under the ADA and claimed that providing different health insurance benefits based on retirement timeframe due to disabilities was discrimination. The city maintained that retired employees did not have standing to bring such issue and requested the suit be dismissed.

The District Court granted the city’s motion to dismiss and held that alleged discrimination – the reduction of healthcare benefits – did not take place until after Stanley retired at which point she was not a “qualified individual” under the ADA because she was not someone “who, with or without reasonable accommodation” could perform essential functions of the position she held or desired.

Split in the Circuits

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision, but there was a split in the Circuits. The Eleventh, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits have previously stated that the ADA’s antidiscrimination provision “does not protect people who neither held nor desired a job with the defendant at the time of discrimination.”

The Second and Third Circuits have found the ADA’s definition of “qualified individuals” ambiguous and have resolved that ambiguity in favor of retirees.

SCOTUS Decision

In ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed the previously held Eleventh Circuit order that Stanley lacked standing to sue the city of Stanford, Florida. The Court examined Title I of the ADA, which makes it unlawful for a covered employer to discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to compensation. The majority held that the statue’s use of present-tense verbs “holds,” “desires” and “can perform” underlines the fact that the ADA protects those who are either employed or actively seeking employment, but not retired, at the time of the discriminatory action.

Justice Neil Gorsuch stated, “those present-tense verbs signal that [the ADA] protects individuals who, with or without reasonable accommodation, are able to do the job they hold or seek at the time they suffer discrimination,” “conversely, those verbs tend to suggest that the statute does not reach retirees who neither hold nor desire a job at the time of an alleged act of discrimination.”

The Court reasoned that Stanley was not subjected to disability discrimination at the time the city adopted its revised health insurance policy in 2003. The Court stated that Stanley’s complaint suggested that she was not disabled in 2003 and was still expected to complete the 25 years of service. When Stanley’s benefits ran, she had been retired for two years already, and Stanley’s complaint did not alleged anything regarding the timing and nature of her diagnosis, nor did it state facts that related to whether she worked for a period of time with a disability.

Dissent

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in full and criticized the majority approach, including its core conclusion that Stanley was not a “qualified individual.” Justice Jackson stated that the majority overlooked “the clear design of the ADA” which is to eliminate disability-based discrimination in all aspects of employment, including post-employment benefits. Jackson stated that “discriminating against individuals with disabilities in retirement benefits constitutes employment-based bias, should be actionable under the ADA.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayer agreed in part with Justice Jackson and stated that, “the ADA’s definition of “qualified individual” should be broadly interpreted to protect retirees affected by discriminatory policies from their previous employment.”

Takeaway

The Supreme Court ultimately held that retirees lack the basis to sue their former employers under the ADA for unlawful denial of post-employment benefits after leaving their jobs. The Court stated that retirees do not qualify as “qualified disabled workers” under the ADA unless they hold or seek a job at the time of the alleged discrimination. Essentially, to prevail under the ADA’s employment provisions on a disability discrimination claim, an employee must plead and prove that she held or desired a job and could perform its essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation at the time of an employer’s alleged act of disability-based discrimination.