Supreme Court narrows scope of ADA coverage

The Supreme Court today ruled that retirees who no longer hold or seek to hold a job may not sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for discrimination that harms their post-employment benefits.

The ADA protects individuals who are able to perform the job they hold or seek at the time they suffer discrimination, not retirees who neither hold nor desire a job, the Court held in Stanley v. Sanford.

The plaintiff in the Stanley case was a firefighter whose employer offered health insurance until age 65 for retirees with 25 years of service and retirees who retired earlier due to a disability. Five years into her service, her employer changed its policy to provide only 24 months’ worth of health insurance to employees who retired before the age of 65 due to a disability.

After she developed a disability that forced her to retire before she reached the 25-year mark (meaning she was entitled to only 24 months of health insurance), she sued her employer for disability discrimination under the ADA.

The Supreme Court dismissed her claim, concluding she was not a “qualified individual” under section 12112(a) of the ADA because she no longer held or sought a job with the employer at the time that the alleged discrimination occurred.

The Stanley ruling resolves a split in the circuits. The 6th, 7th, 9th and 11th Circuit Courts of Appeals had held that former employees may not sue under the ADA for discrimination in post-employment distribution of fringe benefits, while the 2nd and 3rd Circuits held that former employees do not lose their right to pursue ADA claims just because they no longer are employed.