ADA Watch Update: Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments Concerning ADA Protections

Photo of U.S. Supreme Court in Washington D.C.

ADA Watch reported last June that the Supreme Court had granted review and would hear oral argument in Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida. On Monday, January 13th, the court heard arguments to consider whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects against disability discrimination with respect to retirement benefits distributed after employment. The City of Sanford argues that even though Lt. Karyn D. Stanley, a firefighter with Parkinson’s who served the City for nearly 20 years, was a “qualified individual” while working, she became unable to perform the essential functions of the job in retirement. Therefore, they claim, she was no longer “qualified” for protection under the ADA. (The ADA defines “qualified individual” as a person who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform a job’s essential functions.) The lower courts are divided on this, with the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits saying the ADA does not cover former employees, while the Second and Third Circuits say that it does.

The National Association of Counties, supporting the City of Sanford, makes clear that they are seeking the unhindered right to eliminate promised healthcare benefits for people with disabilities in order to cut costs. “As local governments are looking for cost-saving mechanisms to balance budgets, some may need to cut costs by reducing or eliminating post-employment benefits for disability retirees,” NAC declared. 

The AARP Foundation is one of several Amici Curiae (“friend of the court”) organizations in support of the petitioner, Karyn Stanley. “Karyn Stanley’s case highlights a critical issue for older adults with disabilities: the need for fair access to retirement benefits,” says Louis Lopez, Vice President of Litigation, AARP Foundation. “The ADA was designed to protect individuals from discrimination, yet the differing interpretations risk leaving many people vulnerable, especially those who become disabled after years of dedicated service. With the Supreme Court poised to address this circuit split, AARP Foundation stands firm in advocating for the rights of all workers, ensuring that former employees can seek justice and maintain their access to essential benefits.”

Protecting Against Disability Discrimination in Retirement

Deepak Gupta, the Supreme Court litigator representing Stanley, explains that, “If this were a case about race discrimination or religious discrimination, there’d be no question. Retirees have those protections. A company can’t cut off the benefits of all black workers or all Jewish workers. That would be illegal. And so the question here is the same thing true of people who are alleging that they’ve been discriminated against because they’re disabled.”

Gupta provided ADA Watch with a statement from petitioner Karyn Stanley, who said, “This is an important case, not only for me but for all Americans with disabilities and those who have served this country as first responders. I’m hopeful that the Supreme Court will uphold the essential protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ensuring that all disabled retirees have the right to pursue justice for discrimination and receive the benefits we earned through our service.” AARP’s Rebecca Rodgers said, “Today, nearly 19 million seniors—a third of adults age 65 and older—have a disability. Many of these older adults, like Ms. Stanley, rely on retirement benefits to access necessary healthcare.”

Additional Background on the Case

In 1997, the Supreme Court, in Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., ruled that former employees were eligible to sue under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Disability rights advocates insist that former employees should similarly be protected under the ADA. Ruth Colker, chair of constitutional law at Ohio State University, explains, “It’s a very irrational reading of a statute to say that the day after you retire you lose all claims to disability discrimination from your former employer, when they still have the ability to discriminate against you on the basis of disability by changing the terms of your retirement plan.”

After the oral arguments, Smita Ghosh, Senior Appellate Counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center stated, “Ruling for Stanley on the question of whether individuals can sue under the ADA for post-employment discrimination would vindicate the history of that statute. As our brief explained, Congress passed the ADA in response to social and political movements of people with disabilities seeking comprehensive protection against discrimination in the workplace. As Justice Sotomayor put it in today’s argument, the ADA was enacted to ‘encourage people with disabilities to enter the workforce.’ Denying Lt. Stanley’s claim for the simple reason that it involves benefits distributed after retirement would clearly undermine this goal.”

Reuters reported, “The court’s three liberal justices all suggested that Stanley could sue because she was qualified for her job when the city adopted its policy and while she was working to earn her retirement benefits.”

After listening to the oral arguments, William D. Goren, one of the country’s foremost authorities on the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, told ADA Watch that he is “cautiously optimistic” about the outcome of this case. Read a detailed description and analysis of the oral arguments at Goren’s blog, “Understanding the ADA.” A decision in the case is expected in the summer of 2025.

Amici Curiae (“friend of the court”) organizations in support of the petitioner Karyn Stanley, include AARP, Constitutional Accountability Center, Disability Rights Legal Center, Disability Rights Advocates, National Disability Rights Network, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Public Justice, National Employment Lawyers Association, National Employment Law Project, Georgia Advocacy Office, Emory Law Volunteer Clinic for Veterans, and the Emory Law School Disabled Law Students’ Association.