The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified in Stanley v. City of Sanford, No. 23-997, that individuals who have already retired are generally not considered “qualified individuals” eligible to assert claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In this case, the Court determined that the plaintiff, a retired firefighter, had not sufficiently plead a discrimination claim under the ADA based on the specific circumstances presented.
In Stanley, the plaintiff worked as a firefighter for the Sanford City Fire Department. At the time of her employment, the City offered health insurance coverage until age 65 to two categories of retirees:
- Those who retired after 25 years of service; and
- Those who retired early due to a disability.
However, the City later amended its policy, limiting health insurance coverage for disability retirees to just 24 months post-retirement. Fifteen years after this change, Stanley retired due to a disability and subsequently filed a lawsuit under the ADA, alleging disparate treatment between disability retirees and service retirees. The parties agreed that retirement benefits constitute a form of compensation.
Definition of “Qualified Individual” Proves Critical
The Supreme Court focused on the statutory language of the ADA, particularly Section 12112(a), which makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate “against a qualified individual on the basis of disability.” A “qualified individual,” as defined by Section 12111(8), is someone “who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that she holds or desires.”
The Court emphasized that this definition—framed in the present tense—requires that the person must currently hold or seek employment. The Court also pointed to the ADA’s definition of “reasonable accommodation,” which includes actions like job restructuring, modifying facilities, or adjusting training materials—remedies that apply only to current employees or job applicants, not retirees. Stanley, having already retired and not seeking employment when the alleged discrimination took place, did not meet this definition of a “qualified individual.” To pursue a valid claim, a retiree must show they were both disabled and a “qualified individual” at the time the discriminatory policy was enacted. In Stanley’s case, she did not become disabled until after the change in policy and was therefore not protected.
Missed Opportunity
However, the Court did acknowledge that Stanley under certain conditions, may still have been able to present a claim for discrimination under the ADA. Specifically focusing on Stanley’s situation, she might have been able to present a claim for discrimination if the City had adopted the discriminatory retirement benefits policy when she was disabled and a qualified individual, or she had been affected by the policy change while she was employed and a qualified individual but retired at the time she brought her suit. Lastly, if she had become subject to the discriminatory policy, while a qualified individual, she may have been able to proceed forward.
In her briefing on appeal, it appears she had been diagnosed with Parkinson’s in 2016 therefore for two years she was a qualified individual with a disability subject to the alleged discriminatory retirement benefits policy. Unfortunately for Stanley, she did not plead sufficient facts in her complaint for the court to determine when she became disabled. As the case came to the Court on a motion to dismiss, the justices could not look beyond the pleadings to determine the precise timeline of her disability. Had Stanley been able to demonstrate she became disabled (e.g., due to Parkinson’s disease) before the 2018 policy change, or that she had worked while experiencing a disability, her claim might have proceeded forwarded.
Conclusion
Although the Court’s decision clarifies that retirees are generally not going to be permitted to seek redress for alleged discriminatory practices by their former employer, there may be some leeway, if the complaint is properly plead, to do so. However, it appears that the rights of retirees will be extremely limited.
