The Supreme Court on June 20 ruled against a retired Florida firefighter with Parkinson’s disease who wants to sue her former employer for discrimination over post-employment benefits.
The new ruling means the petitioner, Karyn Stanley, will not be able to proceed with her stalled lawsuit against Sanford, Florida.
The opinion in Stanley v. City of Sanford was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
The decision affirms a federal appeals court ruling that found Stanley had no standing to sue under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Standing refers to the right of someone to sue in court. The parties must show a strong enough connection to the claim to justify their participation in a lawsuit.
Stanley had to accept disability retirement at the age of 47 after her Parkinson’s disease became so severe that she was unable to continue working as a firefighter for the City of Sanford.
Parkinson’s is a chronic, progressive disorder that affects the nervous system. Patients can experience tremors, walking and balance issues, difficulty speaking, and other symptoms.
Stanley claimed that Sanford discriminates against disabled retirees by limiting when they become eligible for a health insurance subsidy.
She had been working for the city since 1999 when she retired in 2018. When Stanley began her employment, the city had a policy of paying for insurance until age 65 for employees who took retirement for a qualifying disability.
However, during Stanley’s employment, the city changed its policy in 2003, limiting coverage to 24 months for disabled retirees.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida held in December 2021 that former employees such as Stanley had no legal standing to sue under the ADA because they’re no longer “qualified individuals” whom the law protects from discrimination.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling in October 2023.
The petition states that the ADA allows plaintiffs, including former employees, to call upon the full “powers, remedies, and procedures” available under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, as the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 in Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.
Title VII protects employees and job applicants from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
The ADA states that employers aren’t allowed to “discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to … terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.”
However, the federal courts of appeals are divided on whether the anti-discrimination provisions of the ADA cover disabled former employees asking for post-employment benefits, according to the petition.
In the new opinion, Gorsuch wrote that the ADA “protects people, not benefits, from discrimination.”
“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,” he said.
If Congress wants to expand the application of the law to protect “retirees like Ms. Stanley, it can. But the decision whether to do so lies with that body, not this one,” Gorsuch wrote, adding that Stanley still has other legal avenues she may pursue.
The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the 11th Circuit.
Jackson filed a dissenting opinion that was joined in part by Sotomayor.
Jackson wrote that retirement benefits “are essential building blocks of the American Dream.”
Disabled individuals who have retired from working “simply want to enjoy the fruits of their labor free from discrimination,” she said.
“It is lamentable that this Court so diminishes disability rights that the People (through their elected representatives) established more than three decades ago. Even so, there is hope for a legislative intervention to fix the mistake the Court has made,” she wrote.
This article by Matthew Vadum appeared June 20, 2025, in The Epoch Times.
Photo: Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch