News & Analysis as of

Retirement Supreme Court of the United States Employee Benefits

Venable LLP

SCOTUS Limits ADA Lawsuits by Retirees Over Post-Employment Benefits

Venable LLP on

In a June decision, the Supreme Court limited retirees' ability to bring Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuits, finding that the ADA generally does not allow claims by retirees or protect post-employment health...more

Gould + Ratner LLP

SCOTUS: ADA Doesn’t Extend to Retired Employees

Gould + Ratner LLP on

The United States Supreme Court has determined that the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) does not extend to discrimination claims from retired employees. In an 8–1 decision issued on June 20, 2025, the Court held that...more

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer

The Supreme Court rules that individuals who no longer hold or seek to hold a job do not have standing to sue under the ADA for...

On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) held in Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida that a retired employee who could no longer hold or seek to hold her job could not sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act...more

Kohrman Jackson & Krantz LLP

Supreme Court finds Retiree Not Considered “Qualified Individuals” Under the ADA – But Pleading Can Make the Difference

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...more

Holland & Hart - Employers' Lawyers

The Supreme Court “Clarifies” ADA Title I Protections for Retired Workers

On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Stanley v. City of Sanford, No. 23-997, addressing the scope of protections available to retired workers under Title I of the Americans with...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Supreme Court Limits ADA Claims to Employees and Applicants, Not Retirees

In, Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act, holding that Title I’s employment discrimination provisions do not apply to individuals who are...more

FordHarrison

Supreme Court: Retirees Who Cannot Work are not "Qualified Individuals" Entitled to Protection Under Title I of the Americans with...

FordHarrison on

On June 20, 2025, in Stanley v. City of Sanford, the United States Supreme Court concluded that a retiree who could no longer work because of a disability is not a “qualified individual” entitled to protection under Title I...more

Fisher Phillips

SCOTUS Rules Against Retired Firefighter in Disability Discrimination Case – But Says Some Post-Employment ADA Claims Can Prevail

Fisher Phillips on

The US Supreme Court just significantly restricted who can succeed on post-employment disability discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and when they may do so – but made it clear that employers...more

Stark & Stark

United States Supreme Court Ruling Significantly Narrows Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act

Stark & Stark on

On June 20, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued an important ruling in Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida, which significantly narrows the scope of the protections under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities...more

Jackson Lewis P.C.

Timing Is Everything: SCOTUS Shuts Down Retiree’s ADA Post-Employment Benefits Claim

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

Do former employees have the right to sue their previous employer under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for discrimination in the administration of post-employment fringe benefits? Resolving a circuit...more

Fisher Phillips

SCOTUS Predictions: Supreme Court Will Rule Against Retired Firefighter in Post-Employment ADA Case

Fisher Phillips on

The Supreme Court will soon decide whether a retiree can sue a former employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for discrimination in post-employment benefits. While the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Supreme Court Hears Arguments on ADA Retiree Discrimination Claims

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could have significant impacts on employee retiree medical insurance plans. In Stanley v. City of Sanford, a retired city employee alleges that Sanford’s...more

Groom Law Group, Chartered

Supreme Court to Decide ERISA Prohibited Transaction Dispute

On October 4, 2024, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in Cunningham v. Cornell University. The appeal involves review of a split among the United States Courts of Appeals over what plaintiffs must plead when...more

Kilpatrick

United States Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument Involving Differential State Tax Treatment of Federal / State Government...

Kilpatrick on

On December 3, 2018, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Dawson v. Steager, a case addressing West Virginia’s personal income tax regime, which exempts state employee retirement benefits without offering...more

Jackson Lewis P.C.

High Court Orders Sixth Circuit To Clean Up Its Retiree Health Benefits Case Law ‘Mess’

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

Collective bargaining agreements, including those that establish ERISA plans, should be interpreted according to ordinary principles of contract law, the U.S. Supreme Court has reaffirmed in a per curiam opinion. CNH...more

Miller Canfield

Supreme Court Reaffirms Rejection of Inferences in Retiree Health Benefit Dispute

Miller Canfield on

The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed a U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding that that former employees of CNH Industrial N.V. were entitled to lifetime, vested healthcare benefits. The opinion, issued yesterday,...more

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

Put It in the CBA: Supreme Court Once Again Finds Retiree Health Benefits Are Not Vested

On February 20, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States tackled another controversy from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding whether retiree medical benefits enjoyed by individuals who retired while a collective...more

Proskauer - Employee Benefits & Executive...

Tackett Redux: Ordinary Principles of Contract Interpretation Mean No Inference of Vesting

In an opinion released yesterday, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) must be interpreted according to “ordinary principles of contract law.” CNH Industrial N.V. v. Reese, No. 17-515,...more

BakerHostetler

Supreme Court Overrules Sixth Circuit (Again) In Class Action Dispute Over Retiree Medical Benefits

BakerHostetler on

Is Yard-Man really dead this time? This issue should never have arisen, the Supreme Court should not have had to address it in 2015, and it shouldn’t have required Supreme Court attention a second time just three years...more

Proskauer - Employee Benefits & Executive...

District Court Rules Johnson Controls Retirees Not Entitled to Lifetime Health Benefits

A district court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania held that, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision in M & G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, 135 S. Ct. 926 (2015), the Third Circuit’s rule that clear and express...more

Stinson - Benefits Notes Blog

Don’t Play Hide the Ball with Your Claims Procedure

ERISA does not have a statute of limitations for lawsuits brought by participants to check claim benefits under the plan. Instead, courts borrow from similar state statutes of limitations. In a decision two years ago, the US...more

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

Supreme Court Rejects Analysis of Duration of Retiree Benefits As Contrary to Contract Law

On January 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States resolved a long-standing dispute between the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the remainder of the federal judiciary in a case concerning the extent to which...more

McGuireWoods LLP

Supreme Court Rejects Yard-Man: Ordinary Contract Principles Apply When Interpreting Retiree Medical Promises

McGuireWoods LLP on

The Supreme Court has unanimously vacated a Sixth Circuit ruling that a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) vested retirees with lifetime medical benefits. M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, No. 13-1010, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 759...more

Miller Canfield

U.S. Supreme Court Rebukes Reliance on Yard-Man In Retiree Health Benefit Dispute

Miller Canfield on

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Circuit’s reliance on retiree-friendly inferences set forth in UAW v. Yard-Man are incompatible with ordinary principles of contract interpretation and should not be used when...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides M & G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett

On January 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided M & G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, No. 13-1010, holding that ordinary principles of contract law govern the interpretation of pension and insurance provisions of...more

28 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide