WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on June 20 ruled against a retired firefighter who wants to sue her former employer for reducing health care benefits for disabled retirees, a decision that failed to give the same ADA protections to retirees that current employees have.
The court ruled that Karyn Stanley can’t sue the city of Sanford, Florida, under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
That upheld a lower court’s ruling that the ADA didn’t apply to Stanley because she no longer worked for the city when she filed her challenge.
Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that someone claiming discrimination under the ADA must prove that she held, or wanted, a job that she was able to perform at the time of the alleged discrimination.
“In other words, the statute protects people, not benefits, from discrimination,” he wrote. “And the statute tells us who those people are: qualified individuals, those who hold or seek a job at the time of the defendant’s alleged discrimination.”
If Congress wants to expand the law to protect retirees like Stanley, it can, he continued.
“But the decision whether to do so lies with that body, not this one,” he wrote.
The Americans with Disabilities Act was designed to protect active employees and job applicants from discrimination. It was not intended as a law that extended to employers’ relationships with former employees, the business groups and associations representing cities and counties against Stanley’s allegations argued.
The law covers someone who “with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.”
Stanley’s lawyers argued she was employed – and thus covered by the law − when her future benefits were curtailed in 2003.
When Stanley became a firefighter in 1999, the city paid for $1,000 of her approximately $1,300 monthly premium for health insurance. Anyone retiring after 25 years of service or because of a disability would continue to receive the benefit until age 65.
After Stanley left the department in 2018 at 47 due to Parkinson’s disease, she discovered that benefits for disabled retirees were reduced in 2003.
The city covered $1,000 of her $1,300 monthly health insurance premium for only two years, after which she was required to pay the whole premium herself.
Arguing that the city discriminated against her because of her disability, Stanley sued, asking the city to continue to pay $1,000 of her monthly insurance premium until she turns 65.
The city countered that even though Stanley’s benefits were reduced, the company treated her better – not worse – than non-disabled employees who retired with less than 25 years of service because those employees get no subsidy while she retained it for two years.
The case is Stanley v. City of Stanford.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court sides against disabled firefighter in benefits case
