The United States Supreme Court recently resolved a circuit split regarding whether the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) extend to individuals who are no longer employed at the time the alleged discrimination occurs. In Stanley v. City of Sanford, the Supreme Court considered a challenge to a post-retirement cessation of retirement benefits, which the plaintiff alleged was the result of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court held that individuals who do not hold or seek employment at the time of the alleged discrimination are not “qualified individuals” protected by the ADA’s employment provisions.
Background
Karyn Stanley worked as a firefighter for the City of Sanford, Florida from 1999 to 2018. When she was hired, the City offered health insurance until age 65 for retirees with 25 years of service and those who retired earlier due to a disability. In 2003, however, the City changed its policy to provide only 24 months of coverage to retirees who retired early due to a disability. In 2018, Stanley was forced to retire early as a result of a disability, which meant she was only entitled to 24 months of coverage under this revised policy. Stanley sued, arguing that the City discriminated against her in violation of the ADA by providing different benefits to individuals who retired due to a disability.
The district court dismissed Stanley’s ADA claim, reasoning that the ADA only protects a “qualified individual,” defined to mean “an individual who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” The district court held that Stanley was not a “qualified individual” because she no longer held or sought a job. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, noting that the Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have similarly held that the ADA’s antidiscrimination provision does not protect individuals who did not hold or desire a job at the time of the discrimination. The Eleventh Circuit also noted, however, that the Second and Third Circuits have reached the opposite conclusion and have extended the ADA’s protection to reach retirees like Stanley. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari to resolve the circuit split on this issue.
SCOTUS Decision
On June 20, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a decision holding that in order to prevail on an ADA discrimination claim, a plaintiff must plead and prove that, at the time of the employer’s alleged act of discrimination, she held or desired a job and could perform its essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation. Because Stanley was retired at the time of the alleged discrimination— i.e. the City denying her more than 24 months of health insurance coverage— the Court held that her claim was properly dismissed.
In support of this conclusion, the Court’s majority reasoned that the statutory language of the ADA makes clear that Congress did not intend for the statute to reach retirees. The employment provisions of the ADA make it unlawful to “discriminate against” someone who “can perform the essential functions of” the job that she “holds or desires.” According to the Court, these present tense verbs suggest that the statute “does not reach retirees who neither hold nor desire a job at the time of an alleged act of discrimination.” Furthermore, the ADA defines “reasonable accommodation” to refer to things like job restructuring and facility modification, which only make sense in the context of current employees and do not apply to retirees. Based on this, the Court concluded that the lower courts properly dismissed Stanley’s ADA claim because a retired employee who does not hold or seek a job is not a “qualified individual” under the statute.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, criticizing the majority’s holding as a “counterintuitive conclusion” that “overlooks” the “clear design of the ADA.” Justice Jackson argued that the text of the ADA does not foreclose retirees’ ability to sue over discrimination in the postemployment payout of benefits they earned on the job for several reasons. First, Justice Jackson argued that the statute by its own terms does not categorically exclude former employees or retirees from its protection, nor does it explicitly carve out postemployment discrimination as nonactionable. Second, Justice Jackson noted that the ADA’s statutory scheme conveys broad protection for workers against disability discrimination without placing a temporal limit on the reach of its protections. Finally, Justice Jackson contended that the statute’s qualified-individual definition merely operates to protect employers from having to extend employment to those who cannot do a job, but does not impose requirements on the time at which the alleged discrimination must occur relative to the plaintiff’s period of employment for the plaintiff to pursue an ADA claim.
Key Takeaways for Employers
In light of the Stanley decision, employers should consider the following implications:
- Stanley narrows ADA protections for retired employees and rejects the more plaintiff-friendly approaches of the Second and Third Circuits, which had previously held that retired employees do not necessarily lose their right to pursue an ADA claim.
- Plaintiffs alleging discrimination under the ADA must now plead and provide that at the time the alleged discriminatory conduct occurred, they held or sought employment and could perform the job’s essential functions with or without reasonable accommodations.
- This case will limit ADA claims by retirees against their former employers, but the decision does not preclude all claims from retirees or all claims about retirement benefits. For example, Justice Gorsuch opined—in a section joined only by Justices Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan—that retired employees may be able to proceed with ADA claims if they can plead and prove that they were disabled and a “qualified individual” under the ADA when their employer adopted a discriminatory retirement benefits policy, even if they later happen to be retired when they bring suit.
- Despite the Supreme Court’s holding that the ADA does not extend to retirees like Ms. Stanley, other laws may protect retirees from discrimination with respect to post‑employment benefits, including, for example, state antidiscrimination law and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Before making any changes to retiree benefit plans in light of Stanley, employers should consider seeking legal review of their plans and proposed changes to ensure compliance with the ADA and other applicable law.
