A newly slated case for review by the US Supreme Court could redefine employers’ benefits obligations to former employees with disabilities, depending on the outcome of the lawsuit filed by a former Florida firefighter. The case involves Karyn Stanley, who retired early from her firefighting job in Sanford, Florida, due to Parkinson’s disease. She is challenging a city policy that limited her health insurance benefits to two years post-retirement, claiming it discriminates against disabled workers in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The case is primed to resolve a division among six federal appellate courts over whether ex-employees can sue under the ADA for discriminatory post-employment policies. The Eleventh Circuit previously ruled against Stanley, finding she lacked standing as the ADA only covers individuals who currently hold or are seeking jobs. The Supreme Court’s decision could thus clarify the ADA’s scope or potentially heighten compliance burdens for employers.
Lynn Luther, a management-side employment attorney with Eastman & Smith, noted that a ruling in favor of Stanley could discourage employers from offering post-employment benefits due to the risk of expensive litigation. The ability to modify these programs is crucial for controlling costs amidst a competitive labor market, especially as businesses aim to allocate resources towards new and current employees.
Jennifer Shinall, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, highlighted that employers could lose their ability to adjust retirement programs in response to market changes if the court rules in favor of Stanley. She stated, “If I’m an employer, I’m going to be very nervous to make those sorts of promises to begin with if I can’t respond to the market.”
The ADA’s language specifies it applies to workers who can perform essential job functions of positions they “hold or desire,” a clause that has led to legal debate about its applicability to former employees. While some experts believe the current high court’s propensity for strict interpretation suggests they may uphold the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, others argue that such a reading ignores the ADA’s broader anti-discrimination goals. Ruth Colker, a constitutional law chair at Ohio State University, argues it is irrational to deny former employees protection from disability discrimination just after retirement.
Supporters of Stanley hope the court mirrors its 1997 decision in Robinson v. Shell Oil Co, which allowed former employees to sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. They argue that the ADA incorporates procedural provisions from Title VII, making its standing rules similarly applicable. However, Shinall pointed out that past Title VII cases involved retaliation, whereas Stanley’s case centers solely on discrimination, potentially influencing the court’s leanings.
Employee advocates warn that upholding the Eleventh Circuit’s decision could jeopardize the health care of disabled workers nationwide who rely on promised benefits. The International Association of Fire Fighters, which filed an amicus brief, believes the Supreme Court aims to correct this perceived injustice in its next term.
For detailed insights, see the original report on Bloomberg Law.