The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday against Karyn Stanley, a firefighter who alleged that the city of Sanford violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by reducing her health-insurance subsidy after she retired early due to Parkinson’s disease.
The decision upheld a previous ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Stanley’s lawsuit.
Stanley, who retired in 2018 at the age of 47 because of her illness, had argued that the change in health-insurance benefits amounted to discrimination under the ADA.
At the heart of the legal battle was whether the city’s actions constituted a violation of the ADA’s provisions aimed at preventing employment discrimination against individuals with disabilities.
In the opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court focused on the statute’s language, determining that the law protects only “qualified individuals” who are current employees or job applicants at the time of the alleged discrimination.
Gorsuch wrote, “the law protects people, not benefits, from discrimination, and the statute also tells us who those people are: qualified individuals, those who hold or seek a job at the time of the defendant’s alleged discrimination.”
This interpretation led to the conclusion that Stanley, as a retired employee, did not qualify for protection under Title I of the ADA.
In contrast, Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson provided a strong dissent, highlighting that the law does not specify any timing restrictions related to employment status in cases of alleged disability discrimination.
She emphasized, “Disabled Americans who have retired from the workforce simply want to enjoy the fruits of their labor free from discrimination.”
Jackson argued that Congress intended to protect the rights of retired individuals under Title I, and the court’s decision effectively undermined that protection.
The case traces back to Stanley’s employment history, where she served as a firefighter for the city starting in 1999 but was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in 2016.
Initially, the city provided health-insurance subsidies until the age of 65 for those retiring after 25 years or due to disabilities. However, a policy change in 2003 limited this benefit to only two years for early retirees.
Consequently, Stanley received the subsidy for only two years following her retirement, imposing an additional financial burden of $1,000 per month once the subsidy ended.
After filing her lawsuit, a U.S. district judge dismissed her claims regarding the ADA, and the 11th Circuit Court upheld that decision, stating that her status as a former employee disqualified her from suing under Title I of the ADA.
Throughout the legal proceedings, the Biden administration and several organizations, including the AFL-CIO, the International Association of Fire Fighters, and AARP, expressed their support for Stanley.
Conversely, entities such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Counties backed Sanford in this case.
Gorsuch’s opinion garnered support from Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
Meanwhile, Apart from Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor also aligned with parts of the dissent.
The ruling represents a significant interpretation of the ADA and its protections for individuals with disabilities, focusing on current employment status rather than post-retirement rights.
image source from：cbsnews
