Latest news with #KarynStanley
Reuters
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Reuters
US Supreme Court curbs discrimination claims over lost retiree benefits
June 20 (Reuters) - Retirees cannot sue their former employers for disability discrimination after leaving their jobs, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Friday in a ruling against a disabled former Florida firefighter that could make it harder to bring lawsuits seeking to restore lost retiree benefits. The ruling, opens new tab upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit by Karyn Stanley, who had worked as a firefighter in Sanford, that accused the city of discriminating against her by ending a health insurance subsidy for retirees. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored the ruling, wrote that only job applicants and current employees are "qualified individuals" covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, a landmark federal law that prohibits discrimination based on disability. "In other words, the statute protects people, not benefits, from discrimination. And the statute also tells us who those people are: qualified individuals, those who hold or seek a job at the time of the defendant's alleged discrimination," Gorsuch wrote. Gorsuch was joined by the court's five other conservative justices and liberal Justice Elena Kagan. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson penned separate dissenting opinions. While Stanley worked for Sanford, located in the suburbs of Orlando, the city changed its policy to limit health insurance coverage for disabled retirees to 24 months after they stopped working. Stanley retired from her job after two decades because her Parkinson's disease had made it impossible for her to work, according to court filings. She sued the city in 2020, claiming it discriminated against workers who retired early because of a disability by giving them a smaller healthcare subsidy than employees who retired after 25 years of service. The city in court filings has said its policy was lawful and necessary to contain costs related to employee benefits. Sanford covers insurance costs for workers who retire after 25 years of service until they turn 65, and had previously done so for employees who retired due to a disability regardless of how long they worked for the city. While Stanley worked for the city, it changed its policy to limit coverage for disabled retirees to 24 months after they stopped working. Stanley was 47 when she retired. Friday's decision will help reduce the legal risks that employers face when they change or terminate retirement benefits, according to Caroline Pieper, a Chicago-based lawyer with the firm Seyfarth Shaw, which represents employers. "While there are certainly other considerations ... this case should give employers more comfort under the ADA when they modify or reduce post-employment offerings," Pieper said, referring to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Friday's ruling affirmed decisions by a judge in Florida and the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had dismissed Stanley's lawsuit.
CBS News
6 hours ago
- Health
- CBS News
Firefighter forced to retire early due to Parkinson's cannot sue Florida city for health benefits discrimination, U.S. Supreme Court rules
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled against a firefighter who retired early because of Parkinson's disease and alleged the city of Sanford violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by limiting a health-insurance subsidy. Justices upheld a decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the lawsuit filed by Karyn Stanley, a fire-department lieutenant who retired in 2018 at age 47 because of the effects of the disease. The dispute stemmed from Stanley losing a health-insurance subsidy two years after she retired and involved questions about whether the city violated part of the Americans with Disabilities Act aimed at preventing discrimination in employment. Friday's main opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, focused heavily on wording in the law that bars discrimination against a "qualified individual on the basis of disability." The opinion said the definition of a "qualified individual" in what is known as Title I of the law applied only to current employees or people seeking jobs. Gorsuch wrote that the law "protects people, not benefits, from discrimination. And the statute also tells us who those people are: qualified individuals, those who hold or seek a job at the time of the defendant's alleged discrimination." But Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson wrote a blistering dissent, arguing the law "says nothing — zero — about the preemployment or postemployment timing of an act of disability discrimination." "Disabled Americans who have retired from the workforce simply want to enjoy the fruits of their labor free from discrimination," she wrote. "Congress plainly protected their right to do so when it crafted Title I. Yet, the Court ignores that right today." A civil servant demanding better post-retirement health benefits Stanley began working as a firefighter for the city in 1999 but was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease in 2016. When Stanley was hired in 1999, the city provided health-insurance subsidies up to age 65 for firefighters who retired after 25 years of service or who retired because of disabilities, according to court documents. The city changed the policy in 2003 to scale back the benefit to two years for employees who retired early because of disabilities. As a result, Stanley received the subsidy for two years after she retired, rather than up to age 65. A brief filed in the case said the end of the subsidy resulted in Stanley facing an additional $1,000 a month in health-insurance costs. Stanley challenged the city in court, but a U.S. district judge dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act claim. A panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, saying Stanley, as a former employee, could not sue under Title I of the law. The Biden administration and organizations such as the AFL-CIO, the International Association of Fire Fighters and AARP filed briefs at the Supreme Court backing Stanley. Meanwhile, groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Counties and the National League of Cities supported Sanford in briefs. Gorsuch was joined Friday in parts of his opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. He was joined in another part by Alito, Kagan and Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor joined part of Jackson's dissent.
New York Times
7 hours ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Supreme Court Finds Retired Firefighter Cannot Sue for Disability Discrimination
The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that a retired Florida firefighter cannot sue her former employer under federal disability rights law for refusing to provide her the health benefits that she had once been promised. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote the opinion in a tangled decision, finding that because the alleged discrimination took place after the firefighter, Karyn Stanley, had retired and left her job, she could not bring a lawsuit claiming that she was discriminated against in the workplace. Upholding a federal appeals court ruling, Justice Gorsuch wrote that the section of the Americans with Disabilities Act at issue in the case did not cover disability discrimination claims by retirees. In order to bring a successful claim, Justice Gorsuch wrote, a plaintiff must show that she held or wanted a job and 'could perform its essential functions' at the time of the alleged disability-based discrimination. In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined, in part, by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the justices had abandoned protections for vulnerable retirees. 'Disabled Americans who have retired from the work force simply want to enjoy the fruits of their labor free from discrimination,' Justice Jackson wrote, adding that Congress had 'plainly protected their right to do so' when it drafted the federal disability rights law. Justice Sotomayor, in a separate writing, argued that a majority of the justices appeared in agreement that retirees may be able to bring disability discrimination claims for actions that occurred while they were still employed. Ms. Stanley might have been able to argue that this would apply in her case, too, Justice Sotomayor wrote, but the court had not been asked to weigh in on that question. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
USA Today
8 hours ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Supreme Court sides against disabled firefighter suing for health benefits discrimination
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on June 20 ruled against a retired firefighter who wants to sue her former employer for reducing health care benefits for disabled retirees, a decision that failed to give the same ADA protections to retirees that current employees have. The court ruled that Karyn Stanley can't sue the city of Sanford, Florida, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. That upheld a lower court's ruling that the ADA didn't apply to Stanley because she no longer worked for the city when she filed her challenge. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that someone claiming discrimination under the ADA must prove that she held, or wanted, a job that she was able to perform at the time of the alleged discrimination. "In other words, the statute protects people, not benefits, from discrimination," he wrote. "And the statute tells us who those people are: qualified individuals, those who hold or seek a job at the time of the defendant's alleged discrimination." If Congress wants to expand the law to protect retirees like Stanley, it can, he continued. "But the decision whether to do so lies with that body, not this one," he wrote. 'Essential building blocks of the American dream' In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said retirement benefits are 'essential building blocks of the American dream.' 'Disabled Americans who have retired from the workforce simply want to enjoy the fruits of their labor free from discrimination,' she wrote in the dissent that was joined in part by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. 'It is lamentable that this Court so diminishes disability rights that the People (through their elected representatives) established more than three decades ago.' Jackson said Congress could step in 'to fix the mistake the Court has made.' The Americans with Disabilities Act was designed to protect active employees and job applicants from discrimination. It was not intended as a law that extended to employers' relationships with former employees, the business groups and associations representing cities and counties against Stanley's allegations argued. The law covers someone who 'with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.' Stanley's lawyers argued she was employed – and thus covered by the law − when her future benefits were curtailed in 2003. When Stanley became a firefighter in 1999, the city paid for $1,000 of her approximately $1,300 monthly premium for health insurance. Anyone retiring after 25 years of service or because of a disability would continue to receive the benefit until age 65. After Stanley left the department in 2018 at 47 due to Parkinson's disease, she discovered that benefits for disabled retirees were reduced in 2003. The city covered $1,000 of her $1,300 monthly health insurance premium for only two years, after which she was required to pay the whole premium herself. Arguing that the city discriminated against her because of her disability, Stanley sued, asking the city to continue to pay $1,000 of her monthly insurance premium until she turns 65. The city countered that even though Stanley's benefits were reduced, the company treated her better – not worse – than non-disabled employees who retired with less than 25 years of service because those employees get no subsidy while she retained it for two years. The case is Stanley v. City of Stanford.
USA Today
11 hours ago
- Health
- USA Today
Supreme Court sides against disabled firefighter suing for discrimination over health benefits
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on June 20 ruled against a retired firefighter who wants to sue her former employer for reducing health care benefits for disabled retirees. The court ruled that Karyn Stanley can't sue the city of Sanford, Florida, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. That upheld a lower court's ruling that the ADA didn't apply to Stanley because she no longer worked for the city when she filed her challenge. The Americans with Disabilities Act was designed to protect active employees and job applicants from discrimination. It was not intended as a law that extended to employers' relationships with former employees, the business groups and associations representing cities and counties against Stanley's allegations argued. The law covers someone who 'with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.' Stanley's lawyers argued she was employed – and thus covered by the law − when her future benefits were curtailed in 2003. When Stanley became a firefighter in 1999, the city paid for $1,000 of her approximately $1,300 monthly premium for health insurance. Anyone retiring after 25 years of service or because of a disability would continue to receive the benefit until age 65. After Stanley left the department in 2018 at 47 due to Parkinson's disease, she discovered that benefits for disabled retirees were reduced in 2003. The city covered $1,000 of her $1,300 monthly health insurance premium for only two years, after which she was required to pay the whole premium herself. Arguing that the city discriminated against her because of her disability, Stanley sued, asking the city to continue to pay $1,000 of her monthly insurance premium until she turns 65. The city countered that even though Stanley's benefits were reduced, the company treated her better – not worse – than non-disabled employees who retired with less than 25 years of service because those employees get no subsidy while she retained it for two years. The case is Stanley v. City of Stanford.
