Supreme Court to hear retired firefighters’ bid to sue former employer over benefits
CASE PREVIEW
at 11:00 am
The Justice will hear Stanley v. City Sanford, Fla. The dispute is 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 after she left her job. (Katie Barlow).
The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in a dispute next week over whether a Florida firefighter who retired can sue her former employer for discrimination regarding the benefits she received after leaving her job. 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. Stanley was a firefighter when she began her career. The city paid for just over 75%. 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. The new policy allows firefighters who retire with 25 years of service to continue receiving the subsidy up until 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. Stanley was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in 2016. She retired two years later at the age 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. Stanley could not sue the city because she didn’t work there and didn’t want to when her benefits were terminated.
Stanley went to the Supreme Court in June, who agreed to weigh in.
In Stanley’s brief on the merits she argues against the 11th Circuit that she can’t sue the city since she didn’t work there when her benefits were terminated.
Stanley argued to the Supreme Court in June.
1010101010101010 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. U.S. Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar writes that “when an employer makes a change in a plaintiff’s post-employment benefit, it is discriminatory.” According to the city, the court of appellations was right on this question: the employee cannot bring a lawsuit against discrimination that occurs after she leaves a position. The ADA only prohibits discrimination of those who can perform their current or desired job. The city emphasizes that the law is meant to protect people who have disabilities “who are currently working, want to work and can work” against discrimination. The city argues that Stanley’s claim cannot be pursued because she could not prove that the city discriminated while she was working. 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. The city says that the court should not answer this question because Stanley admitted in the court-of-appeals that she had no legal right to file a discrimination case while she was still employed by the city. The city also adds that Stanley did not argue that she had a claim for discrimination after she was diagnosed as having Parkinson’s disease, but before she retired. This article was originally published by Howe on the Court.
