This coming term, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether former firefighter Karyn Stanley can proceed with her disability claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) against her former employer, the City of Sanford, Florida.
Ms. Stanley is a retiree, who was forced to retire because of symptoms related to her Parkinson’s Disease. Ms. Stanley, who receives disability retirement from the city, filed suit under the ADA claiming that the city’s retirement benefits plan discriminates based upon disability. When Ms. Stanley first started with the department, the City’s plan granted retirees free health insurance until age 65, but the plan subsequently changed, covering disabled retirees for only two years after leaving the city’s employ.
The ADA states that employers cannot “discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to … terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” The ADA specifically defines who is a “qualified individual” that is subject to its protections. People qualify if they “can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires[.]”
So, what does “holds or desires” mean? The federal appeals courts, the lower courts directly below the U.S. Supreme Court, are split on this issue. The Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits agree with the Eleventh Circuit’s holding in Ms. Stanley’s case that the ADA does not apply to former employees because they neither hold (currently fill) nor desire to hold (aka are applicants for) positions of employment. The Second and Third Circuits hold otherwise that the ADA does apply to former employees because the ADA must be read consistent with Title VII, the federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex, gender and national origin, which allows former employees to pursue discrimination claims. The Supreme Court will almost certainly resolve and put an end to this circuit court split. Given the Supreme Court’s recent leanings on employment claims before it, I do not expect Ms. Stanley to prevail. Thereafter, employees’ only hope may be that a friendlier Congress is in place to make the final decision by amending the ADA.
