The U.S. Supreme Court, in Stanley v. City of Sanford, has resolved a dispute between several U.S. Courts of Appeal by ruling that a retiree does not have standing to sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
Law. The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of disability and requires employers to provide “reasonable accommodations” for disabled employees when doing so does not cause an undue hardship for the employer.
A reasonable accommodation is an accommodation that allows an “otherwise qualified” disabled employee to perform the essential functions of the employment position. If a reasonable accommodation would not allow the employee to perform his or her job, then the employee is not “qualified” as defined under the ADA.
Facts. When the employee was hired, the City offered health insurance until age 65 for two categories of retirees: those with 25 years of service and those who retired earlier due to disability. However, in 2003, the City changed its retiree plan to provide health insurance until age 65 only for retirees with 25 years of service, while those who retired earlier due to disability would receive only 24 months of coverage.
The employee subsequently retired from employment with the City due to a disabling condition. She then sued in federal court, claiming the City violated the ADA by providing different health-insurance benefits to those who retire with 25 years of service and those who retire due to disability.
The lower courts dismissed her ADA claim, reasoning that the alleged discrimination occurred after she retired, when she was not a “qualified” individual under the ADA because she no longer held or sought a job with the City.
Supreme Court. The Court ruled that “to prevail under [the ADA], a plaintiff must plead and prove that she held or desired a job, and could perform its essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation, at the time of an employer’s alleged act of disability-based discrimination.” Noting that different courts had reached different conclusions, it agreed with the Courts of Appeal that said the ADA “does not protect people who neither held nor desired a job with the defendant at the time of discrimination.”
According to the Supreme Court, a “qualified” individual is someone “who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that [she] holds or desires.” Congress’s use of present-tense verbs (“holds,” “desires,” “can perform”) signals that the ADA only protects individuals able to do the job they hold or seek at the time they suffer discrimination, not retirees who neither hold nor desire a job.
Similarly, it said that the ADA’s “definition of ‘reasonable accommodation’ [such as] ‘job restructuring,’ modifying ‘existing facilities used by employees,’ and altering ‘training materials or policies,’ makes sense for current employees or applicants but not for retirees…. [The ADA’s] examples of discrimination, such as ‘qualification standards’ and ‘employment tests,’ similarly aim to protect job holders and seekers, not retirees.”
The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the lower courts’ dismissal of the lawsuit.