Justice Department asks Supreme Court to rule narrowly on whether the ADA protects retirees
WASHINGTON −The Supreme Court on Monday wrestled over whether federal employment protections for people with disabilities extend to retirees, an issue that has divided the lower courts.
But attorneys for both the disabled firefighter at the center of the case and for the Department of Justice told the justices they could avoid that bigger question and just rule that the Americans with Disabilities Act’s anti-discrimination protections apply in this firefighter’s case.
Other circumstances are “trickier issues,” said DOJ attorney Frederick Liu. “And this court’s usual practice is not to decide issues more broadly than it needs to.”
A broader ruling could affect millions of older Americans who retire because of a disability.
The case before the court centers on a firefighter who retired after working nearly 20 years for the City of Sanford, Florida.
When Karyn Stanley was hired in 1999, her benefits included health insurance that would continue until age 65 if she retired after 25 years of service or became disabled. But after Stanley left the department in 2018 because of Parkinson’s disease, she discovered that benefits for disabled retirees had been reduced in 2003. The city covered $1,000 of her $1,300 monthly health insurance premium for only two years, after which she had to pay the whole premium herself.
Stanely sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, arguing that the city discriminated against her because of her disability. She wants the city to continue to pay $1,000 of her monthly insurance premium until she turns 65.
But a federal appeals court said the ADA doesn’t cover former employees.
The ADA covers someone who “with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.”
Because Stanley can no longer perform the essential functions of the job, she is no longer covered, according to the city.
Stanley’s lawyers argue she was employed – and thus covered by the law − when her future benefits were curtailed in 2003.
That’s the most straightforward way of deciding the case, said Deepak Gupta, who represented Stanley before the court.
The justices could, but don’t need to, agree with Stanley that the entire statute makes more sense when read to treat retirees as covered, he said.
Justice Elena Kagan may be on board with that approach.
“It seems a little bit odd to decide this bigger, broader question… when as to this particular person, it’s academic,” she said.
Although the court is only deciding whether Stanley can raise a claim, not whether she’s likely to win, Justice Samuel Alito said he wanted to explore whether there was actual discrimination “because I want to know where we’re going with this.”
Gupta, Stanley's attorney, said the city singled out people with disabilities when they changed benefits, “solely because of their disabilities."
The city countered that even though Stanley’s benefits were reduced, she was still treated better – not worse – than nondisabled employees who retired with less than 25 years of service because she retained the subsidy for two years.
Make Washington make sense for you: Sign up for Paste BN's On Politics newsletter.
The DOJ took no position on whether the city was wrong to change benefits for disabled retirees. Liu argued only that the law gives Stanley a chance to make that case – and do it in a way that doesn’t foreclose other people from raising the broader protection claim in the future.
A decision in Stanley v. City of Stanford is expected by summer.