The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that a retired Florida firefighter cannot sue her former employer under federal disability rights law for refusing to provide her the health benefits that she had once been promised.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote the opinion in a tangled decision, finding that because the alleged discrimination took place after the firefighter, Karyn Stanley, had retired and left her job, she could not bring a lawsuit claiming that she was discriminated against in the workplace.
Upholding a federal appeals court ruling, Justice Gorsuch wrote that the section of the Americans with Disabilities Act at issue in the case did not cover disability discrimination claims by retirees. In order to bring a successful claim, Justice Gorsuch wrote, a plaintiff must show that she held or wanted a job and “could perform its essential functions” at the time of the alleged disability-based discrimination.
In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined, in part, by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the justices had abandoned protections for vulnerable retirees.
“Disabled Americans who have retired from the work force simply want to enjoy the fruits of their labor free from discrimination,” Justice Jackson wrote, adding that Congress had “plainly protected their right to do so” when it drafted the federal disability rights law.
Justice Sotomayor, in a separate writing, argued that a majority of the justices appeared in agreement that retirees may be able to bring disability discrimination claims for actions that occurred while they were still employed. Ms. Stanley might have been able to argue that this would apply in her case, too, Justice Sotomayor wrote, but the court had not been asked to weigh in on that question.
Ms. Stanley worked as a firefighter in Sanford, Fla., a city of about 65,000 people northeast of Orlando.
When she started her job in 1999, the city offered health insurance until age 65 for two categories of retirees — those with 25 years of service and those who retired early because of disability.
In 2003, the city changed its policy, limiting health insurance to those who retired because of disability to just 24 months of coverage.
After nearly two decades, Ms. Stanley retired in 2018 at age 47 after she was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. She expected that the city would continue to pay for most of her health insurance until she turned 65, but it refused, citing its changed policy.
Ms. Stanley sued, claiming that the city had violated the A.D.A. by providing different benefits to 25-year employees versus those who retired because of a disability. She argued that the city’s policy amounted to impermissible discrimination based on disability.
A federal trial judge dismissed her claim under the A.D.A., and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit agreed.
In asking the justices to hear the case, lawyers for Ms. Stanley said it could affect millions of disabled Americans who rely on retirement benefits that they earned while employed.
One section of the A.D.A. specifies that it is illegal to discriminate in compensation because of a disability. The justices wrestled with whether the section included retirees.
Deepak Gupta, a lawyer for Ms. Stanley, said in an emailed statement that the decision had created “a troubling loophole that allows employers to discriminate against retirees simply because they can no longer work due to their disabilities.”
In her dissent, Justice Jackson wrote that she hoped Congress might step in and provide a “legislative intervention” to shield other disabled retirees.
Abbie VanSickle covers the United States Supreme Court for The Times. She is a lawyer and has an extensive background in investigative reporting.
Adam Liptak covers the Supreme Court and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments. A graduate of Yale Law School, he practiced law for 14 years before joining The Times in 2002.
The post Supreme Court Finds Retired Firefighter Cannot Sue for Disability Discrimination appeared first on New York Times.
