Supreme Court to hear retired firefighter’s bid to sue ex-employer over benefits

CASE PREVIEW

The justice will hear Stanley v. City of Sanford, Fla. on Jan. 13. (Katie Barlow)

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next week in a dispute over whether  a Florida woman who retired from her job as a firefighter can bring a lawsuit against her former employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act alleging discrimination in how benefits are provided in the years after she left her job.

Karyn Stanley, a retired firefighter, tells the justices that a ruling for her former employer “would pull the rug out from under firefighters, police officers, teachers, and others who become disabled through years of service to their communities and country.” The court’s decision here, she argues, will affect millions of people with disabilities who rely on retirement benefits.

But a “friend of the court” brief by a group representing local governments notes that employee compensation, including employee benefits, make up a substantial part of a town or city’s budget. A ruling for the employee, they say, “could lead to a flood of litigation — and its costs — whenever budgets are rebalanced.”

Stanley joined the fire department in Sanford, Fla. in 1999 and worked there for two decades before Parkinson’s disease forced her to retire. When Stanley began work as a firefighter, the city covered just over 75% of her monthly health-insurance premium. The city told her it also provided the same subsidy until age 65 to employees who retired after 25 years on the job or because of a disability.

In 2003, the city changed its policy on insurance subsidies. Under the new policy, firefighters who retire after 25 years of service continue to receive the subsidy until they reach the age of 65. But firefighters who retire as a result of a disability receive the subsidy for 24 months or until they become eligible for Medicare, whichever comes first.

Stanley was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in 2016. She took disability retirement two years later, at the age of 47. The change in the city’s subsidy policy meant that in 2020 Stanley became responsible for the entire cost of her health insurance for the next 15 years, until she reaches the age of 65.

Stanley went to federal court, alleging that the city’s policy violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by discriminating against her based on her disability.

The trial court dismissed the case, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld the dismissal. Because Stanley did not work for the city and did not want to work for the city when her retirement benefits were terminated, it held, she could not bring her claim under the ADA.

Stanley then came to the Supreme Court, which agreed in June to weigh in.

In her brief on the merits, Stanley pushes back against the 11th Circuit’s contention that she cannot sue because she did not work for the city when her retirement benefits were ended. The ADA, she insists, sweeps broadly to allow lawsuits by “any person alleging discrimination” in violation of the act who “claims to be aggrieved.

The ADA also makes clear what can form the basis of a lawsuit, she continues. It bans discrimination in hiring and firing, as well as “compensation” and “terms, conditions, and privileges of employment” – which, Stanley writes, the Supreme Court has “long read to include post-employment benefits over which retirees may sue.”

Finally, she says, the ADA indicates that a lawsuit can be filed either when an employer adopts a benefits policy “or when the plaintiff ‘is affected by’ it.” Therefore, she contends, she can prevail (and her lawsuit can go forward) even under the 11th Circuit’s rule because she did work for the city when it adopted the new policy in 2003.

The Biden administration filed a “friend of the court” brief supporting Stanley in which it agreed that her lawsuit can proceed because Stanley was still working for the city when it made the change to the policy in 2003.

More broadly, the Biden administration contends, the ADA also prohibits discrimination in benefits provided to former employees. “When an employer makes a discriminatory change in a plaintiff’s post-employment benefits,” U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar writes, “it retroactively alters the plaintiff’s terms or conditions of employment and changes the compensation she earned as an employee performing the essential functions of her job.”

The city emphasizes that the only question before the Supreme Court is whether a disabled former employee can bring a lawsuit under the ADA to challenge discrimination that takes place entirely after she leaves a job.

On that question, the city writes, the court of appeals was correct: The employee cannot, because the ADA only bars discrimination against someone who can perform the job she currently holds or wants. The law, the city stresses, is intended to protect people with disabilities “who presently work, want to work, and can work” from discrimination. Because Stanley could not show that the city discriminated against her while she was still on the job, the city concludes, her claim cannot go forward.

The city notes that the 11th Circuit’s rule does not bar all lawsuits by former employees: Retirees can still bring lawsuits to challenge discrimination that they experienced while they were working, it says. Moreover, the city observes, a ruling in the city’s favor does not foreclose all relief for someone like Stanley, as there are “numerous remedies under other federal and state laws” that can provide a remedy for discrimination that occurs after employment.

Stanley, the city continues, is now making a separate argument before the justices – that she was the victim of discrimination while she was still working as a firefighter. But the court should not address this question, the city insists, because Stanley acknowledged in the court of appeals that she could not have had a legal right to bring a discrimination claim while she was employed by the city and able to do her job. Similarly, the city adds, to the extent that Stanley argues that she had a discrimination claim after she was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease but before she retired, she did not make this argument in the lower court.

This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.