Follow us on LinkedIn to see future News.
July 15, 2025
In late June, the United States Supreme Court typically releases a series of decisions (often controversial) marking the end of its term and the beginning of summer. This summer was no different. On June 20, the Supreme Court held that a retired employee who no longer holds a job or seeks a job is not a “qualified individual” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), reasoning that the statute does not reach retirees. The Court affirmed the dismissal of a firefighter’s complaint against her former employer because her healthcare benefits were reduced after she retired due to disability. See Stanley v. City of Sanford, No. 23-997, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 2387 (June 20, 2025).
Factual and Procedural History of the Case
Karyn Stanley worked as a firefighter for the City of Sanford, Florida. At the time of her hire in 1999, the City offered health insurance until age 65 for retirees in one of two categories: (1) retirees with 25 years of service; and (2) retirees who retired earlier due to a disability. However, in 2003, the City changed its policy, offering health insurance until age 65 only for retirees with 25 years of service. Individuals who retired early due to disability would receive only 24 months of continued health insurance coverage, unless they became eligible for Medicare benefits sooner. Stanley retired in 2018 (after 19 years of service) due to a disability, entitling her to only 24 months of health insurance coverage.
Stanley sued, alleging that the City violated the ADA because it provided different benefits to those who retire with 25 years of service and those who retire due to disability. The federal trial court dismissed Stanley’s ADA claim, holding that the alleged discrimination occurred after she retired, when she no longer was a qualified individual under the ADA because she no longer held or sought a job with the City. Stanley appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the federal trial court’s decision.
The question before the Supreme Court was whether a retired employee who does not hold or seek a job is a “qualified individual” under the ADA. A split exists among the federal appeals courts on this issue. The Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have held that the ADA’s anti-discrimination provision does not protect people who neither hold nor desire a job with the defendant at the time of the alleged discrimination. The Second and Third Circuits, on the other hand, have deemed the ADA’s definition of “qualified individual” to be ambiguous, and they have resolved the ambiguity in favor of extending the statute’s protections to retirees.
SCOTUS’s Analysis and Decision
Justice Gorsuch authored the opinion for the majority of the Supreme Court, concluding that, to prevail under the ADA – which, among other things, makes it unlawful to discriminate with respect to compensation against a qualified individual on the basis of disability – a plaintiff must plead and prove that, at the time of an employer’s alleged disability discrimination, she held or desired a job and could perform its essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation.
The Supreme Court first looked at the plain language of the ADA, noting that it signals Congress’s intent to protect individuals who are able to perform the job that they hold or desire at the time they suffer discrimination – not retirees who neither hold nor desire a job. For example, the Supreme Court looked at Congress’s use of present tense verbs to define a “qualified individual” under the ADA as someone who “can perform” the position that she “holds or desires.” The Supreme Court further noted that the ADA’s definitions of “reasonable accommodation” (job restructuring, modifying existing facilities used by employees, and altering training materials or policies) and examples of discrimination (qualification standards, employment tests) signal an intent to protect job holders and seekers, not retirees. The Supreme Court also found instructive the fact that another part of the ADA speaks differently and, thus, must have been intended to work differently. Specifically, though the statute prohibits acts of employment discrimination against a “qualified individual,” it prohibits retaliation against “any individual” who opposes a discriminatory act.
Next, the Supreme Court compared the ADA with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, noting that Title VII covers former employees where the statute contains no temporal qualification. However, where Title VII links “employee” to present-tense verbs, if refers to current employees. The Supreme Court noted that its precedent supports its current interpretation as well, citing to a 1999 case in which the Court noted that, if someone no longer can perform a job, it negates an essential element of an ADA case.
The Supreme Court’s majority rejected Stanley’s arguments and those of the dissenting Justices. Specifically, it rejected the argument that every retiree is qualified because no essential functions exist for them to perform. It also rejected the argument that the Supreme Court’s reading of the ADA renders its reference to “applicant or employee” surplusage (Stanley claimed that, if every “qualified individual” holds or desires a job, then the ADA’s reference to “applicant or employee” serves no function). The Supreme Court further rejected the argument that the ADA’s language allowing “any person alleging discrimination” to sue makes irrelevant the “qualified individual” language, noting that the ADA protects people (qualified people), not benefits, from discrimination. Finally, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the purpose of the ADA would best be served by a decision extending the ADA to retirees. It invited Congress to make that extension if it wished to do so.
Takeaways
Though the Supreme Court’s decision narrows the scope of the ADA’s protections, it left open the argument that other laws may protect retirees from employment discrimination. Employers should seek counsel when changing post-employment benefits.
This article is designed to provide one perspective regarding recent legal developments, and is not intended to serve as legal advice. Always consult an attorney with specific legal issues.
